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

I can add it's not only some players that said it looks like a DoS game...
I heard press reviews that compare what they see to a DoS game with a BG "skin" (according to the rules and the lore).

Everyone is not agree about the quality of it, that's true... But it's still something like a skin.

It doesn't mean the game don't look cool, but it still looks more like DoS than BG..

Ah, I've been discovered.



D&D doesn't necessarily mean BG, but BG necessarily means D&D.



A DOS2 sequel would continue the story of DOS2. BG3 will not. DOS3 would have the same lore and rules (largely) of DOS2. BG3 will have the rules and lore of D&D.

For the above reasons, it is indisputable (to the rationale minded*) that BG3 is not a sequel to DOS2 nor is it a clone of DOS2.

* or to those who do not consider the rules and lore of D&D to be insignificant.

And round and round we go...

It looks like DOS2 because it is currently borrowing a fair amount of its assets.

This the TB, 4 party, MP stuff grates more with certain fans of BG1&2. Had the demo been delivered with a more BG-esque UI and familiar music and a party of say 5, we might be only discussing the thread that shall not be named.

As for the other thread, last I looked quite a few had BG games as their favorites but those that didn’t still had BG3 at or near the top of their most anticipated. Yes, that means they aren’t as upset over design changes, but change can be good, new blood can be good. I still say for now wait and see and provide constructive criticism to that which you dislike.

In short BG3 =/= DOS3 it just looks a little too similar for the moment.

And that's why they have those abysmal metacritic scores of 89 and 88.



Also watch your tone. Just because you despise something you don't need to unleash your imaginary Tourette Syndrome.

i'm not even sure i should even reply to you. unless you have reading problems, i stated people initial reaction thought it was a DOS2 sequel. this was not made up by me. it was from the reaction of people who first saw the gameplay reaction. this was my reaction as well. and i do play DOS and DOS2. stop being naive.

no one is saying BG3 is a sequel to DOS2. but it is infact a clone of DOS2, aesthetically and gameplay wise. the assets, the UI, the aesthetics, the graphics, the animations, the effects and even the gameplay. heck even larian themselves admitted in the interview that they wanted to promote their RPG mechanics in DOS2 using the baldur's gate name.

also i'm not the only one who notice the similarity and definitely not the only one who are saying it. half of community of BG is talking about it and even arguing in social media and forum.

You say it's a clone like this is a fact.

The game is not even out yet.

Pre-alpha means maybe 10% of the game is done. EVERYTHING you listed is being changed or polished before it gets released.

People need to chill out and actually open their ears for something I've been saying for over a week:

What we saw was pre-alpha. Pre-alpha games are so barebones that they are more of a 'test of concept'. Virtually everything you saw will be changed, and most of it was placeholders in order to make a working demo to show people. What we saw was meant to get people interested & aware of the idea of a Baldur's gate 3. NOTHING WE SAW WAS MEANT TO SELL US THE GAME. If it WAS, the game would be in early access. Stop treating a barely-playable pre-alpha state like it's 100% what the game will be. Because it's not!

My apologies if I was unclear. I do think it's incredibly important for potential consumers to voice their opinions on stuff like lore, gameplay, assets and design.
I also agree it's better to give this feedback early on, since it's in pre-alpha and all of this stuff is still being designed, it's the perfect time to give this feedback.

My statement was more of a generalized to those continuing to spread misinformation, stating this game is a "clone" or that it's not a BG game because XYZ. Well duh, they've got nothing but a playable framework and assumedly story/dialogue/quests settled on.

It's important to voice opinions and to give feedback or wants, but they need to be based in reality and actually have some common sense or insight. Otherwise it's perceived as unconstructive nonsense (again not you, but others).

I have reading problems? Me? Notice the title of the thread. How amusing.



If you wish to limit your definition of "clone" to fit your narrative, perhaps you should just use a different word.



Keyword being "similarity." Has anyone disputed that they are similar?

This is the main thing everyone should consider.

The presentation was meant to show us the intro movie, some party members, that the game uses DnD rules and dice rolls are used for almost everything and some cool stuff you can do now.
The game will not look exactly like in the video and some game mechanics will probably change too.
There were lots of placeholders and they re used lots of stuff from D:OS in order to show us a playable demo.

So please calm down everyone and stop acting like the end of the world is coming, just because the PRE-ALPHA demo of a game does not look exactly how you want it to be.

Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

It's not to launch any other discussions but if you only speak about D&D, about The Forgottent Realms and (new) Larian's (great) mecanics, I still don't see BG.

The game looks great, the way they adapt D&D rules looks cool, DoS is a great and a sucessfull game, things were too old and had to be improved, Larian is a very good studio and we're all happy they are creating games for us all... Nearly everyone agree with that... There are different points of view, some just don't care about BG1&BG2, some were just waiting about a new great D&D video game, etc... this is not a problem...
Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

Maybe the title of the thread is bad because it's a shortcut but if you read between the line, it means that this game really doesn't look like a BG game...
Their first intention is not to show BG, because there's not expect a little bit of fan service/easter eggs (venturing forth) and a link with the story... (which is sufficient for some, but not for a lot).

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

(no jurist here ? no stockholders of Larian or WoTC ? please don't talk about the legal rights, we're all players here so speak about video game as the player you are).

Because, when it is COMPLETED, it will be BG3.

Again; you're acting like the game has to be BG3 before it's even playable.
It. Is. Not. Playable. It's not even a GAME at this point because it's NOT PLAYABLE.

You're acting like what we saw is the entire game, and is everything that will be in said game.

You're complaining that milk, eggs, sugar, & flour don't look like the promised $500 wedding cake; this is NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT.
WHAT WE SAW IS NOT WHAT BALDUR'S GATE 3 WILL LOOK LIKE, SO AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THE BLOODY EARLY ACCESS COMES OUT.


I'm sorry to sound so snide about it but you're complaining about an UNFINISHED PRODUCT!
'This unpainted, untreated car frame does not look like the 1984 Ford T-Bird you promised me!'

Because. it's. Not. Finished. Hell, it's barely started, from a timeline perspective!

Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,...
Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now

It's called Baldur's Gate 3, because it takes place after Baldur's Gate 2 within the Baldur's Gate IP and universe using the Baldur's Gate lore. I honestly don't know how much clearer this can possibly get as it's been explained countless times across countless threads.

Hey look, you're maybe starting to get it! Things can and will change! You're right, we did not see anything yet

As already said by a ton of other users and myself multiple times, it's in the same universe as Baldur's Gate with the same story. The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.

To make this as simple as possible, I'll say it yet again: What has been shown thus far is just a pre-alpha riddled with place-holders and incomplete art assets that will likely all be changed by release. Even the early access won't have much finished content. It's all going to look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BY LAUNCH

Larian apparently overestimated the fanbase's intelligence. They expected us all to realize a game without a working save function was not meant to do more than let us know they're making it.
Yet everyone is screaming like this game was sold in this state for $60.

Yeah, sure. The first response to that, though, was "what does that mean?" (took a while to get an idea of what that might mean, but best I can do so far is that a game more similar to PoE or P:K was expected by some). Then it could be asked why that was expected, considering Larian was making it (BG3 is looking like I expected it to). Then it can be asked if that would have been a good idea to do, considering DOS2's success and PoE's and P:K's lack of it (relatively speaking).

The topic keeps shifting a bit, though. My most recent responses have been to the reiterated claim that BG3 is DOS3, which is a subject related to, but not the same as the subject of what some expected to see.




I'm in the middle of writing this response, so I cannot check easily, but I believe it was said that familiar faces would be in the game. That's a tenuous link, but it is something. Will there be more? I would be surprised if that's it. I expect the stories to connect somehow.

I don't think it was going to be easy to satisfy the BG devotees with the demo. The game looks and plays differently; that does not mean there are not other elements that can connect the two. Should they have thrown you a bone (e.g. an aged npc from BG1 or 2)? Possibly. I don't think a few story elements or characters would have precluded the uproar over the different look and play of the game, though.

Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular".
I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...



I can't really see the point here... You're answer and the "early access" argument looks something like : they didn't show BG because there is still no BG in BG3.
But don't worry, it's coming. Is that what you mean ?




I'm playing BG1 now. First time I try the EE on switch, so it's probably easier to "remember" what it could means (even if it's probably not the same for everyone).
Similar to PoE and P:K, probably on some points, but not on everything. I find really cool elements in what I see, and only Larian could have done this.
As I already said I was really hyped when I learn Larian took the game.

The story and the familiar faces yea, but that's a small point about the specific BG lore...
Obviously it's a part of the sucess I can't deny but I really don't think it's only about that.
That's why I agree with you again, more story elements or characters wouldn't have changed a thing.

What I am saying is half that.

What they showed us was supposed to do 2 things:
1) Show how the 5E rules are being implemented so far.
2) Pique our interest in the game as a concept.

What it was NOT supposed to do:
1) Sell the game.
2) Showcase the graphics/UI/etc

When a game is in pre-alpha, it's not only far form finished, it's barely gotten started, when you put it on a time-scale. They're more firmly in the 'beginning' part than the midway or end.
Everything most people are complaining about? The UI, reused assets, etc? Those are what are called 'placeholder assets'. IE: They are NOT going to be in the finished game. Or, in some cases, will be more polished before release. They were used because the proper UI, monsters, characters, skill icons, whatever were not created yet.

Did Larian jump the gun and show us the game a little too early? Maybe, sure. But they can't have forseen just how badly people would miss the point of the pre-alpha video.
We were not meant to expect most of what we saw to make it into the game on launch. That video was just to say 'Hey! We're making BG3! Check out how we're using the 5E ruleset! If you like the 5E rules; you should be happy!'

But instead, people looked at the demo and started acting like the game was going to be released the next day!

Again, to put it another way:
You paid a guy to scratch-build you an old-model car. You then went by a week later, saw the unpainted, unfinished FRAME and started acting like he was trying to give you that as the finished product while he was in the process of ordering more parts.

The game is nowhere near close to finished. Every complaint about how it looks, or the STORY for Nurgle's sake, from a pre-alpha, is baseless at this point in time.
(And yes, I've seen people claim the story is not BG3 as if they somehow time-traveled into the future)

Yes, it was more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms Lore then Baldur´s Gate. However isn´t it the same at least? The cinematic was not about Baldur´s Gate, the city we saw was Yartar. I was happy to see Yartar again after so a long time.I started my adventure of the D&D Game "Gateway to the Savage Frontier" there. Note: Beware of the thieves!

I find it slightly amusing that this is still going, with the same things being said over and over.

I am old enough to remember when the "This is not BG3 but DOS3" started. It was about an hour before the gameplay reveal, when Stadias youtube channel was spammed with "THIS IS DOS3" over and over and over.

An hour before anyone had seen any gameplay at all.

This would make a great psychology study

people who havent played original sin 2 shouldnt talk about what constitutes a sequal to it.
of all things that looked like it, id nominate the world design.

the combat? not very much.
This is probably not evident for those who havent played it, because they only looked at screenshots and dont know how the combat actually works.
but for one, you dont die this fast in OS2, there sno dicerolls, theres no shared initiative, theres no 3 actions like in DnD, theres action points like in XCOM, theres far more elemental reactions, theres no classes

The entire way the combat is structured is different. and since thats the main gameplay loop youd think that have to be pretty damn simmilar for it to be the same kind of game.