Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

I wonder if that means that they planed to implement changes to make it look more like bg3 but perhaps that didn't have the time, thus the worry. Or if what we saw was mostly the extent of how they envision bg3 to look.

I wonder that too,but the lack of answers on this matter after the demo is what makes me worry about it.
If people is worried about it and you know you're gonna change it you can easily say it without any fears.

--- So much this ^^^ (the sound effects?? selecting, aiming, shooting, animation... this is DOS3)...

In my mind is just impossible to keep those for a new game of another IP even for a real DOS3 game would be super cheap really. I hope we hear some news soon about the direccion the game is going with all this stuff.

Baldurs gate was NEVER ...

1. Goofy representation of movement
a. Jumping with weird sound effects and animation as though every action is magical
b. Landing with the impact of a meteor strike ??
2. Weird sound effects
a. Select the character and point at an enemy (magical sound)
b. fire a standard arrow (magical sound)
c. over the top sound effects
3. Lack of spell verbal casting
4. BG was never DOS (and DOS is never BG).


I can still go for Turn-based or RTwP and be ok, but the game should be more like the original. Not more as in playing the same or even the mechanics, but the essense. What I mean is paying tribute to the high fantasy and deep-rooted core of its D&D history. Bioware knew they were making a digital representation of a D&D world and worked hard to make the game serious in tone and presentation (even with some humor thrown in).

DOS is not and has never been that type of game. It has always been a little goofy and less serious. The only thing that seemed serious in tone in BG was the cinematics. The actual gameplay, movement, sound effects, and animations not so much. If I were not told this was BG, I would not guess it was BG, I would guess DOS3

The funny think is that if you play D&D wich is what they aim for, the game there has ''real pyshics'' like in the real world so all those stupid jumps and shoves and effects for a dash acction are not just weird for BG they're weird for D&D too in my opinion.

I know it's a fantasy game but it's also pretty realistic with some things,you can't shove a dragon for obvious reasons.

To the OP@Algaroth

No matter how hard you try, there not going to budge because those people are stubborn and want to win in their arguments at all costs. They know this is not about DnD, i's about the fact that they were wrong and their expectations betrayed them. If they really followed all the interviews from Sven and Larian studios with by the way Wizards of the Coast before the game play demo, they would not have these ludicrous expectations. How can you somehow think that BG3 was going to look like BG2 and 1? Especially, when DOS was a huge success .

Now they even want to convince us that BG3 is not a DnD game, they actually want to still play BG on their 25 year old computers. Because that is exactly what they thought they were going to get in the year 2021? It' ridiculus.

So again, this is about winning an argument, they don't offer anything constructive.

I could consider myself one of the people you speak about,I don't see any BG franchise vibe on this game and I'm saying why and offering what I think are pretty reasonable solutions keeping in mind the dev's take on the game,I've seen (I think) every interview with Vincke and Mearls and what you say is kind of true,and I expected as much. I knew Larian,I knew what they wanted to do with the game,but sincerily,I expected to see something that reminded me that this game is BG3,the next installment of the bg saga/franchise (that's how they sell it,if you have seen their presentation and interviews you should know)

I've said it already you can use de DOS engine and still make it look more BG

Of course there's pople who is going to complain for ever no matter what you do,but this is not the case and my point stands,it does not matter that BG is based on D&D because the moment they started to add numbers to Baldur's Gate it became a franchise,and every game of a franchise has to be recognizable,that's a fact.
That's the reason they didn't add Dark Alliance to the mix and created it's own franchise. Baldur's Gate descent into Avernus has the name BG because the city is relevant but it does not have a number because is not part of the franchise.

I hope you understand my point here.

That is one big strawman. And I wouldn't call it constructive.

This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.

While I agree... I think people need to remember that they just announced that they were working on it 8 months ago. Most of this stuff is probably just placeholders. It takes a lot of time and work to make a game and all of this is, essentially, just finishing touches. The community was losing their mind over not having any substantial updates - so they put something basic together.

That may be the case but it may be not too. We can only speak about what we've seen and what we know. We also don't know how they'll look if they change them.

I personally REALLY hated it the first time I saw it, but as first and foremost a D&D player of 20 years... It has really really grown on me. The ability to turn it to turn based encounters whenever I want but still keep my other party members out of it if they aren't in that same zone. Awesome.

The turn based nature of the combat itself will be more tactical and easier to think about for sure, which I quite like... There is a sense of urgency with the BG1 and 2 real time combat with pause that you won't get here, but overall, I think I'm on board to give it a real shot.

The bottom line is I would hate to have a game that I have been waiting on for so long, be ruined by my pre-determined bias and not having have tried it yet. Larian know more about games than I do, so I'm inclined to trust their decision until I've played it for myself

I think points can be made without personal insults. Even if you think it is accurate, or is actually accurate, the argument will be missed as the insult is responded to.

I am an old BG player and I'm not mad. Reading other sources of feedback I come to the conclusion that "old BG players who are mad" is a loud but quite small minority.

Do I like BG3 so far? Yes... probably... not sure yet. But my first perception was positive. I didn't like D:OS I and II too much so there's still a chance BG3 takes a route I might not appreciate too much.
Do I have to behave like a Rumpelstiltskin in order to voice my disapproval? Certainly not.

Not saying that every criticism falls into that category of course, but some of it has hilarious 5-year-old-ranting vibes.

General feedback on Twitter and other more "non-focused" sources as well as press are pretty good by the way.

I perfectly understand what you say,for a D&D aproach on a game there's not much to complain mechanic wise,I would tone down shove and jump and I'm curios about how enemies works since the Intellect devourers didn't use their multiatack and they didn't have any resistances,I hope they dont auto adjust the monster cr to your lvl or something like that. But yes,overall any D&D is bound to be happy with the game and I'm glad for it,that's what Larian is aimin for.

I wouldn't call it a bias,not for me at least,I just cannot see BG when they played it or the 4 or 5 times I've seen it after to dissect it xD.

as much as this pisses me off.
i certainly dont wanna be on the side that calls peopl eentitled manchildren.

theres a bad precedent to that.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, even if it happns to be wrong

the intellectdevourers have obviously been nerfed.

this is not a monster usually fought at level 1, they exist thee because the narrative requires them to be there.
Now this is a point of contention for many DnD players because... eh, i dsay its more of an internal debate.

Some people think that monsters statblocks shouldnt be changed for world consistency. Other people are willing to change monsters statblocks because of narrative reasons.
Having played 4e, im not miffed by this because 4e regulary had multple difficulty levels of the same enemy, ofthen representing yougn / injured versions

I do not understand the sentiment "it doesn't look like a BG game"

BG came out 20+ years ago, graphics has gone so far beyond it we now have almost real-life levels of graphic fidelity. To me the important part of it being a BG game should be on the story, the characters, the world building, everything that makes it a DnD game.

I would imagine the UI elements that we saw in the demos that came from DOS2 will be changed, I mean, it pre-alpha, there is so much to be hopeful for.