Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Gameplay impressions

The fact that they keep mixing it up only proves one thing to me - that Bethesda haven't met their sales projections for the past games. Why else would you build games from the ground up? Larian haven't done that with Divinity: Original Sin, have they? It costs a lot more money to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new engine etc. Successful companies don't fix what isn't broken.

First time poster here, just thought I'd give some feedback from someone that plays D&D, has played the old BG/Icewind Dale games and also D:OS 2


I've seen the previous interviews, where it was stated that the game would be based on D&D 5e, which got me kind of hyped. Based off of that, I've made some assumptions and these are my comments:

1. I was pretty sure it'd be turn based (which is fine for me) but did not expect this team initiative type of thing - I feel like it might be fun as certain synergies are unlocked, so I'm happy to play around with it, thought I am worried about how much of an effect winning initiative can have due to the short fights in D&D (usually in the region of 5 rounds).

2. I expected the combat to be almost fully ported from D&D, meaning that:
- I was expecting more reactions than attacks of opportunity and am actually missing them quite a bit - the main one being counter spell, though others such as hellish rebuke or the rogue's uncanny dodge also apply (and most importantly choosing when you use your reaction).
- I am really unsure about what was done with the bonus actions - the fact you can shove, make ranged attacks with improvised weapons (boots) or actual ones (dagger), a jump that is movement AND disengage (ok, that one might be story specific), drink potions and more as a simple bonus action seems to break a lot of the fine balancing done in D&D 5e, meaning the core combat mechanics are completely revamped and need to be fully rebalanced. I'm wondering if there are still bonus action spells and action spells as there are in D&D or if that was removed altogether. Lets not forget most classes are not able to use an object, disengage or dash as a bonus action - if you make that available to everyone you should also remove things like second wind from the fighter, which makes the classes all play the same; That would probably be a bad thing in regards to replayability.
As a result of these adaptations (mostly the bonus actions), the combat system feels like an odd mix of D:OS and D&D, where you simply have 2 actions per round and quite honestly, I'd prefer sticking to one system or the other, so that "I know what game I'm playing" to put it in the most colloquial of terms (i.e. know your audience instead of trying to please everyone).

3. I *LOVED* the "verticallity" as you've come to call it. The fact you can stack boxes and move on top of them is just icing on the cake. I do have a small suggestion though: remove the 10 meter jumping mechanic (or make it once per long rest or whatever) and instead add a climbing mechanic (with the appropriate athletics skill check and/or tool requirements where needed) - by doing this, you could also make ladders/climbing use movement in combat rounds and avoid the whole infinite loop of the AI walking up and down ladders as it has in the actual gameplay reveal.


Leaving the topic of D&D and addressing the game style, I would like to agree with the poster above (Tibovation) - the beauty of the BG games was in it's grittiness and "realism" - let magic be magic and martial skill be martial skill. While blurring this line (such as the bubble appearing around my warrior as I charged for example) in divinity was fine in my opinion due to the game world itself, I feel like it simply doesn't fit in the BG "feel" of the game. Toning down the color intensity might be a great way to bring a "darker" vibe to the game as well.
On the note of RTwP or TB or whatever other system imagined I don't really care that much - as long as there's tactics involved and not JUST a random number generator I'm more than happy.
The past tense in conversation is really strange for me and the movement of characters in these scenes feels... off - I'm not sure how to describe it, somehow "forced". If there's anything I was REALLY missing in the conversations however, it would be other party members butting in, depending on their thoughts and emotions (kind of as it was done in DA:O) - that just makes the game feel more alive and the characters traveling with you have a larger impact on the story (though I understand that might already be present and we've only experienced too little of the game to see it).


With all of that being said, I would like to say that these comments were meant primarily as suggestive feedback to the folks at Larian that have worked hard on this game - even if it stays in it's current form (minus the bugs and missing features) I plan to play and enjoy the game, though I feel like the groundwork is there to make this game beyond excellent.

I fully agree with Tibovation and echo the sentiments about overly-flashy combat.
I didn't know how to describe it myself any better, other than it feeling more like a cartoon rather than a realistic world. I love fantasy, but with a touch of reality!
Tibovation explained it perfectly, so i can only repeat what he said. Let the Warrior be a warrior, without over the top magical effects. Jumping, an Arrow pinning the Enemy down, shoving the enemy, basically all those abilities that are non-magical in nature should be represented in that way, to let the Wizard and other Spellcasters feel a lot more magical in contrast, when their spells are at work.

>cartoony
anyone uses this word is basically beeing disingenuous.

i personally am sick of western RPGs not actually including any effects, hit stop, screenshake or the like. It makes melee combat look boring.

Anyway, i got two things that i found jarring.
Dash and Jump.
Those are both animations from OS2 and they miss the point. A dash action is an action in which you sprint, its not a magic effect, so the visual cue is counter intuitive.
The Jump is an animation holdover from Os specifically from the Take lfight ability and it looks jarring and out of place, and i dont understand why this is beeing made the standard disengagement skill, just boggles my mind.


i gotta say, i felt the OS2 hard in this one, and its jarring even to me.
That beeing said, its Alpha, and they are building on an older foundation, the graphics of the characters and interiors look pretty stellar, tho the oudoors dont work yet (feel a bit stitched togehter)
The animations of the new Enemies also look far better than the animations of the Humans.

This makes me think that all this stuff will get resolved in time.
but sitll, larian will have to work on this.

It looks like a direct Evolution of OS2, people are already shitting on them for that.
Will this be a large detriment for the game? I dont know.

but with the huge CGI trailer, i expected something more advanced, basically the Character models and conversations are on the level that i expected Baldurs Gate 3 to be, the rest, so far, not so much

They haven’t mixed it up all that much since 3 (They didn’t make 1 and 2, the company that did went under) and the Fallout games exceeded expectations until 76. Bethesda’s been using the same engine since Morrowind. If anything there’s a lack of innovation in their games, they instead just dumb down or streamline existing features.

Lots of people don't understand what "pre-alpha" means. Spoilers: It means that things are not in a final state.

For example, complaining about the UI? If you looked at how the UI evolved from the announcement of Original Sin 1 to the final, you probably notice that the UI changes. Because that's what happens when something is in development.

Complaining about the game being "too colorful" is just plain stupid, full stop.

Complaining that combat with level 1 characters doesn't show off higher level stuff like level 5 Counterspells or level 5 Uncanny Dodge is also silly.

lots of assets are from OS2, at least on the UI side.
should be a good pointer: this stuffs not done.
They obviously wont keep it in


I wonder if the UI design will change drastically

The character creation looked very barren because DnD (5e) just doesnt give you a lot of options to start out with

But you have to expect people to talk about it (the UI) since they shown it and this is feedback. Sven didn't say, "hey the UI you see here, it will look a lot different in final, don't worry", could have been very easy to say.

"Darkness" seems to be a concept lost on developers these days. That foreboding feeling of desolation and hopelessness just eludes basically every developer out there. I REMEMBER the days of true darkness in games. Why can't that be replicated anymore?

It's undeniable that there were a lot of similarities with DOS2, they seem built using the very same engine and resources. On my end, that's okay, it's really what I imagined when Larian Studios picked up the game, it is their trademark style after all.

I watched the whole thing, and... It was very interesting. I will start with the things I liked:

1. The art style. Boy, it was visually beautiful. Animations and the like could use with a little bit of polishing, but it is looking really good so far for a pre-alpha. The world is beautiful, and I love the more realistic style in comparison to DOS2's more cartoonish world.
2. Unpopular opinion, but I actually really enjoy turn based combat. It makes the experience all the more wholesome in Co-Op, as it gives you time to actually talk to your friends and plan things together ahead.
3. Many dialog options, which is great! I also have to say that I love the campsite idea, it gives me Dragon Age Origins flashbacks and... I really love it. I can't wait to see how that goes.
4. That there will be many, many playable races. Hopefully they are as well fleshed in lore as they are supposed to, FR is a very rich world.
5. Gameplay seemed very fun. Very DOS2-like, that is true, but I very much enjoy that style.
6. The dice rolling was a very cool idea!
7. I like that it is difficult. I do not mind a little challenge.

Now the things that I didn't like:

1. The overall flashiness of the game, that makes all classes seem magical. We saw the vampire spawn, whose class is actually rogue, if I am not mistaken, conjuring a mage hand at lvl 1, presumably. That leads me to think that there are really no classes, but a simple preset and then you are able to learn all spells, like in DOS2. I am not sure how I feel about that.
2. The spellcasters were lacking in complexity with their spells. There were no verbal, somatic or focus components, and that's disappointing.
3. The elves seemed very human-like in all aspects, and both evil aligned. The sun elf was nothing like a sun elf is supposed to be, a proud exemplar of their people.
4. The combat theme. DOS2 had a great soundtrack, and the battle theme was great. The theme that sounded during the livestream was very disappointing. It did not evoke any feeling at all.

Now some of the things that I hope:

1. Proper classes, with as many spells as possible. I understand some are just too difficult to represent in a game, but the more spells, the better. Subclasses, such as feytouched for warlock, per example, or even prestige classes would also be amazing.
2. Well fleshed out races and interactions based on character race, class, and religion, though that might be just too much asking. One can dream!
3. A more enjoyable and deep experience as a custom character. I usually enjoy the Origin characters as companions, but not as my main character, having to play a preset for a more enjoyable experience seems very opposed to DnD.
4. All base classes in the game. Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, etc. Not to have them would be a heinous crime.

My post yesterday was made before my impressions had sunk in so I want to clarify/expand a bit more.

Regarding the "cartoony" comments, I also think of it like that, but I guess what I really mean is that there should be more contrast and generally a darker tone. After watching the stream yesterday it reminded me of D:OS, but also somewhat of Diablo 3, where anywhere you look on screen you can see what's there. There isn't much black, mostly grey (Edit: I see the poster above beat me to it). The whole palette doesn't match what I had hoped they would aim for. And yes, it's pre-alpha etc, but as some have mentioned already, they won't change the artwork itself this late so anything they do would have to be post-processed. Now, the artwork isn't bad at all, but it's a disconnect with the Baldur's Gate series, just like Diablo 3 was to its predecessors.

And after reading the comment about every action looking like a superpower, I have to say that I fully agree. If this applies to everything you do, nothing will ever be special in terms of visuals. Everything will just become a mish mash of buttons. I remember having a really hard time keeping track of everything in D:OS.

I didn't mind the closeup interaction at all. In fact, many of the animations (or facial expressions) were pretty good I thought. That cleric was especially well done, and the voice actor fit the character nicely. Another thing already mentioned that I also really liked was the vertical scale. I immediately envisioned enormous dragon battles. Just think of battling a dragon (dracolich!) from a high cliff with RTwP. Sadly, this will not happen as they evidently chose another route. I was trying to come up with a way of having both RTwP AND RT but that will mean a total re-write of game mechanics. And we all know that won't happen.

Now, to anyone who disagrees with this. THAT'S FINE. My comments are as a passionate fan of the originals. Like MANY here, BG has been a part of me since childhood and has actually shaped my being in some ways. Much time has passed and new games will never be the same as the "golden oldies". Just having David Warner in BG2 set the bar pretty damn high. But again, it's the same with movie franchises. It's always possible to make a stunning movie within an existing franchise, one that fits in nicely but with a more modern feel, but most don't hit the mark in terms of feel/atmosphere. Examples of this are: The Hobbit trilogy, Prometheus (Alien), the new Star Wars trilogy.

I think they said in the original BG3 announcement that the game would be darker. Look at the first trailer. It didn't become dark until the attack of the mind flayers on Baldur's Gate. So maybe that is when the game takes on a darker atmosphere.

To be fair, the Vampire Spawn had Mage Hand only because of his High Elf race. Any High Elf gets to pick one Wizard cantrip to have at the start of the game, no matter what class they roll. High Elves work the same in the table-top version of 5e.

Oooh, right! Well that's actually a relief

Bethesda / ZeniMax is one of the most obscenely profitable companies in the history of gaming. And they haven't used a new engine since Morrowind, AFAIK.

But Bethesda is a garbage studio that makes crap game and which has operated as a thug throughout its history.

There is backlash against Bethesda now, but there wasn't when F3 released, despite it being a terrible game and unfaithful to the Fallout series. But when people go back to it today, they often see it for the terrible game that it is.

Why didn't people see how bad it was when it released? When it released in 2008, it was during the surge of the Xbox to Xbox 360 generation. The gaming market had grown exponentially since the 1990s and 90%+ of the people who played Fallout 3 hadn't played Fallout 1 or 2 and were relative newcomers to gaming who would be easily impressed by most anything that they played, regardless of how stale and uninspired it might be. If that audience had been playing games for the past 10+ years, they'd have likely experienced how terrible that Fallout 3 is, just like people who had been playing games for 10+ year at that time expressed.

The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3, Part 1 of a five-part analysis

Fallout 3 Is Garbage, And Here's Why

Bethesda NEVER Understood Fallout

Why Bethesda Was Never That Great

Bethesda Has Been Lying WAY Longer Than You Think

This stuff is pouring out after the scandals surrounding Fallout 76, but it was true all along. Why weren't people acknowledging it all along?

Well, I was acknowledging it all along, and getting flamed for it. What made me able to see what the public at-large wasn't able to see, but now does see?

Fanboyism played a huge role. That fanboyism largely came from a lack of experience on the part of the gamers. As I mentioned, when Bethesda released Fallout 3, the vast majority of the gaming audience was relatively new to gaming - and they didn't want to hear anybody rain on their hype parade. And since there were far more of them than there were of long-time gamers, they took the impression of consensus around them as confirmation bias that there really was nothing to the criticisms.

To that massive console audience crowd that came in with the Xbox and 360 console generations, everything, no matter how simplistic it was, seemed new and flashy. As a result, they created mythologies about the games they were playing. They erroneously assumed that that was the best gaming had ever been and they reacted fiercely to having their idols criticized. They took the like sentiments from other relative newcomer gamers around them as confirmation bias that the dumbed-down games they were playing were really all that.

But as time has passed and those gamers have gained more gaming experience, including experience with games that released before they got into gaming, they've more and more come to realize that the games they were so hyped about from the early Xbox console generations are often not actually that good in retrospect.

Angry Joe is one gamer who had admitted to a bit of that publicly, saying he never understood why people were criticizing DICE and Battlefield games, but now he gets it because he's seen those very criticisms in what DICE have done with Battlefield since he started playing the series. When he started playing them, he had no experience with prior Battlefields and just assumed that the ones he started with were the best and the examples of the peak of their titles. But, in reality, they were heavily dumbed-down versions and he just didn't see that because his experience started with those already dumbed-down and chepened Battlefields.

Now, with Bethesda, repeated scandals of theirs have thrown cold-water on the masses and snapped them out of their daydream about the studio and their games and jolted them into giving things a more objective look. And so now more and more people who were huge fans of Bethesda's early console-targeted games are acknowledging that they were never fully or, in cases, even at all what they had been assumed to be.

Fanboyism is a powerful drug. And we've seen that with D:OS2 and people cheering that "BG3" is really just D:OS 2.5. Fanboyism blinds people to objectivity and shuts people's minds down to reason, just like money has shut Larian's mind down to integrity and faithfulness and convinced them to sell-out with BG3 and betray the series' fans and the series' legacy.

Most definitely dont drop the "3" , this is Baldur's gate 3 and it should stay that way forever. What a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but why would any company make another "classic nostalgia" looking Baldur's gate or any DnD video game anymore anyways .. Computer's and video cards have evolved and people don't live in the past anymore they want new good looking visuals and gameplay.

What I've seen so far fits in the next generation of gaming and at the same time keeping with the 5th edition rule set for DnD. When I pick up this game I'm going to feel in the future playing a DnD game that evolved with time. The gameplay they showed made me feel like I was in a DnD fantasy setting. If your a true DnD fan you will play this game unless you only Judge a game by it's nostalgia or visuals. There's more than that to be a true DnD. I feel most people live in the past and don't want to evolve.

And by the way, unless you were living under a rock, Larian studios gaved us lots of signs that Bg3 was going to be different than the classic one's. For one, they created DOS and it was very successful. So people are acting like their surprised that BG3 doesnt "look" like BG2?? seriously. very weak argument.

Well, SINCE it is pre-alpha we can still voice our opinion in the hopes that some things are changed, which is margianally better than not saying anything and being sure nothing will change, no?

On the topic of something being stupid - please, no need to be rude, if you disagree that's fine, it's simple to just say so.

On the topic of Counterspell and Uncanny Dodge - it's not about lvl 1 characters, it's about attack of opporotunity being the only reaction being possible. This is from https://fextralife.com/baldurs-gate-iii-everything-we-know-so-far-gameplay-mechanics/ - decide how credible the source is for yourself:
"Lastly, there are a couple things that differ from 5th Edition and that is that some creatures will have or not have some spells they normally possess for balancing purposes, and normally your Reaction Point can be used for things other than Attacks of Opportunity. But in BG3, in order to prevent the player from having to click off a box to react every time an enemy takes a turn, this has been simplified into only an Attack of Opportunity."

Have a nice day!

So no uncanny dodge or war caster?

Yeah, from what I understand no shield, no war caster, no uncanny dodge, no monk arrowcatching... I really hope that either my info is wrong or that it gets changed.

Just posted it in another thread but i guess the name "Baldur´s Gate 3" was an unfortunate decision because the only common ground to the predecessors is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued but what the title "III" implies. In reality Baldur´s Gate III is "just" a new campaign. The big outcry of many fans could have been avoided if the game had been called "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike" but not "Baldur´s Gate III".

However it was no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. The problem is that the story of the tabletop game must fit into Baldur´s Gate III. It was certainly a mandatory requirement for BG 3 from WotC. So the name "Baldur´s Gate III" was just a sales strategy decision at all.

Well, still looking forward to this "Baldur´s Gate" game.