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

Wait what? You mean the very things we have been told are placeholder. i'm shocked...

honestly, for all i am one of those people defending larian here, i doubt that.

The animations are obviously placeholder and the world design is probably getting a lot more details, but what i mean is very specific stylistic descisions that it shares with divinity.

For example the height and structure of buildings.
Anyone that played OS1 or 2 will definitly recognize the height of the walls on the ruins, they look familliar, not because they are old assets, but because they are new assets created with a simmilar goal in mind.

Now, this isnt a bad thing, but it certainly makes you draw comparisons.
of course the Infinity engien also did this with its prerendered backgrounds.
Anyone that hastn played Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate will certainly not be able to tell a tavern in Targos apart from one in Baldurs Gate.

Theres just some artstyle things that larian likes.
Larian likes Statues, big Statues that remind you of Catholic saints and generaly christian imagery from the Renaissance. They tend to be a feature of Larian games and have been for a while.
Another thing Larian likes to do is floor pattenrs, things like reliefs or mosaics on the floor, ofthen with a vagueley greco roman or renaissance art theme.

Theres some things you cant help but notice.

another thing Larian likes to do is verticality as map boundries. You dont notice it a lot in Original Sin 1 if you dont pay attention but the game world, despite beeing isometric in view, is very vertical and uses this to seperate areas, rather than using walls, small loadscreens, doors or simmilar things.

The terrain looking like a clustered fissure after an Earthquake is soemthing larian has done in the Original Sin games.

Dont get me wrogn, i think it looks quite frankly amazing.
but i see why people associate it with Original Sin, sepcifically compared to Infinity engine games that feature primarily flat terrain due to the nature of the graphics.


Basically what im saying is that Larian is making itself hard for themselves and easy for their detractors.
They make a game thats actually very different from ORiginal Sin.
Having played both of them multiple times and several infinity engine games i can say that the deadlyness of combat certainly reminds me more of the latter than the former, aswell as the random and erratic nature of it.
but the Artstyle is Larian and this makes people associate it with Original Sin (because they havent seen any other larian games, and probably havent played a lot of CRPGs outside of the classical CRPG era up untill bioware went tits up, so to them, CRPGs that look kind of like a Larian game, and dont look like a Bioware or Infinity engine game, probably is an Original Sin clone

Thats it.

Its not the color or how exactly characters look, but its the general level design.
Yes, statues, mosaic, vertical level structure and those kind of ruins are typically Larian.
I like this, but I can understand if some people complain it does not look like BG.

BG had painted backgrounds and you could not rotate the camera so everything had to be visible from a fixed angle. This prevented them from having some vertical structures that may have looked good but prevented the player from seeing the chars, the path, enemies and so on. So the level design depends a lot of the type of camera you have.
BG3 will be a full 3D game while BG1+2 were not so it will look different, but the level design could be closer to BG1+2.

Some time ago the was a BG1 remake as module for NWN2. I did not play it. Can anybody tell if this game with 3D graphic and a different rule set ( DnD 3.5 ) did "feel like BG"?

PS: WOW, I did not expect something useful in this thread anymore. Sometimes there are positive surprizes.

i downloaded the NWN2 conversion for BG1 but i havent tried it yet

Good post!

All well and good, but a cinematic does not count. It is what the game looks like within the game that truly matters.

I enjoyed BGR; it's worth going through just to experience the story with a new face. It was a bit buggy when I went through it, but is apparently much better now.

Drew Rechner and a small team spent 7 years on this, so even if you don't think it's the best thing ever, their dedication should be appreciated. And they are currently working on a reimplementation of SoA/ToB as well, although I don't know when that will be available.

I must admit that I'm not sure what exactly people expect from something titled BG3. BG2 wasn't even set in BG, so the only real link to the first game was the story arc, which is now closed. I suppose non-human companion characters would still be in their prime, and human wizards like Edwin could still be leading magically extended lives. The idea that I might run into Jan Jansen in BG3 does not actually fill me with joy...

D:OS 3 images were leaked early, so everybody pretty much knew that "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS 2 clone right then. This was simply confirmed during the presentation.

Fans just wanted a proper sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but they are getting a sequel to Divinity: Original Sin 2 instead. That said, you shouldn't be surprised to see so many upset BG fans.

ugh

3 people spamming a chat isn't many.
I do understand the concept behind squeaky wheel gets the grease though.

You reply does show that a negative bias had already started from simple pictures. The first thing wasn't the style though, it was the turn based.
This was brought up a lot as a proof that BG3 wasn't BG at all, until one person mentioned that it looked like DOS2.
Suddenly everyone that had been mad about TB turned to this new negative thing.

That's completly false but okay,the thing I noticed first what the assets,the music,and the graphics style.




You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.

I'm just saying you're as extreme as the group you're arguing with.

Alright, this conversation took a turn.

I doubt you noticed the music in the leaked screenshots, which makes me doubt we are talking about the same timeline.

I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.

Obviously the music part was later on the demo,if it wasn't obvious,my bad.

I guess when you say ''3 people spamming a chat isn't many.''I guess you're refering to the live demo stream,that's why I refer to both the screens and the video.

And this ''You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.'' holds true for the presentation,half was ''This looks like DOS3 and I'm totally fine with it'' and the other half was ''This is a DOS2 reskin not BG3''

''I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.''
It's hard to believe when you say BG3 ardent detractors are 3 when the amount of ardent defenders is around the exact same.

As I said, the conversation took a turn.

I was talking about a specific moment and place in time and you expanded it to include more moments and places.
There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started. The same 3 people. Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.

I was on the PAX2 channel and the only thing I saw was excitment for the preview and people asking if they were on the right place thus why I don't share your point.

Part by part so I don't expand anything.
''There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started''. Didn't see any of that.
''Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.'' It didn't expand because of what people where saying,it expanded because it looked (and sounded) a lot like DOS2 and some people were fine with it and some other didn't. I still don't see your point unless we're talking about 2 completly different streams.

We are talking about two different streams.

I see a lot of negative comment about BG3 not being acceptable for a whole variety of reasons, but a lot of the time I get no real sense of what WOULD be acceptable. What would a REAL BG3 game actually look like, if this offering from Larian is not good enough.

I can see clear echos from D:OS in the environmental graphics, sure, but what exactly makes a FR tree or rock different from an OS tree or rock? Does anyone really want the studio to expend effort on recreating all their generic assets simply because the assets have been seen before?

It's 20 years since the last BG story, and personally, I don't have any wish to see the limited A/V technologies of those times in a new episode. Allude to them, sure; quote from them, bring references in, whatever, but why in Ao's name would anyone want to make a modern game with the restrictions of vintage technologies?

Never seen anyone asking for that and there's been a ton of examples either on this thread or many others.

There is no actual point in posting or reading in this thread which was started with pure arrogance, titled with an false statement.
I just did both hereby and I just don't know why.
It's coming and it's going to be called BG3 and some gonna complain about everything and Shadowheart's haircut...

Hi,

You are entirely correct.

I actually started this thread as a joke! (i was a bit mad yeah at first, but now...well, lets see what Larian does...i retract all my statements about potential false advertising as completely unfounded rantish b.s.)

I think Larian will do a great job with this game.

This game IS BG3, not DOS3.

Cant believe people are still commenting on this (wish I could just delete the thread). LOL