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

hi i just want to chime in regarding my opinion. what i've seen this is basically just exactly DOS2 clone but with Baldur's Gate name. the UI, aesthetics, the graphics even 4 party character limit (not to mention turn-based) is exact DOS2 clone. i have DOS2 and i've played it. it's a great game. but Larian please don't be lazy by just copy paste and clone everything like DOS2. i'm looking forward to play baldur's gate 3 not DOS3.

one of the party character looks like Ifan from DOS2 and the vampire guy.. is he an iconic baldur's gate character? i don't particularly like his desgin. the hair, the face, the clothings doesn't seems to click well with high fantasy but looks modern. same with some demon where it's appearance doesn't seems to click at all.

what is that shove and jump? it looks really silly. why not just teleport or blink? it's really very silly and out of proportion in baldur's gate settings. i know this is just my opinion but the art design especially character design except the githyanki.. they all doesn't look right or suitable or reminds me about baldur's gate at all. i don't know? maybe the color pallette? the modern vampire look?

larian.. don't try to be naive and ignore negative feedback. right now i see the community has split like 50/50. you are going to be on a very bad reputation for ruining the franchise.

honestly if you call this DOS3 i will be more than happy.

It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.

My opinion:

I LOVE that this game is more like D:OS 2 than BG 2. Because I only had a short affair with BG 2 but I'm in love forever with D:OS 2.

(Actually I'd have preferred D:OS 3, because I'm way more into Rivellon than Baldurs Gate, but ok... as long as I get a similar humor, the canonical context of the story doesn't matter that much to me... I just think that "classless" is MUCH better than "classful", but ok, ok...)

@ kyrthorsen: We will have to agree to disagree on what hue an Intellect Devourer should be. I can respect your position that they could have a more muted color pallet, however, I don't think that is the direction they should go personally.

It has been 20 years since BG2, and I think Larian has an opportunity to have a wide variety of color pallets across the entire game. I would really like to see how the Mind Flayers look in action. That might make or break my position. Everything else from Intellect Devourers to Goblins looked good to me.

If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"

youll never be satisfied. so no cocnessions should be made to you.

And if you people KEEP bringing up this nonsense about "Muh dark atmosphere" ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.

How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.

These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.

I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?

Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.