Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I don't understand why is it BG3

At present this is not a BG game. It may be a D&D game but it is not a BG game. It could end up a BG game, but would have to undergo drastic changes from what we've seen thus far, which I highly doubt will happen. So claiming that we all have to wait until the game is released to make a judgment is fallacy.

That is a generalized opinion, you can improve such posts by substituting 'we (all)' with 'I' and ending the statement with 'in my opinion', 'I think' or 'I feel' for example.
Thereby you would produce a possibility that someone could actually ask you why you think so.

Fallout 1&2&New Vegas&Arcanum&Vampire:The Mascarade - single player, single Playable Character RPG with open-world exploration, with character creation with results in unique interactions with the enviroment based on character build

While many things changed throughout the years, the appeal and core of those games didn't. The issue with BG3 is not that it impliments features in different way - it's that, like D:OS1&2, it will most likely to be a different genre, with differet appeal and focus then BG1&2. More appropriate, though more extreme, would be Fallout1&2-->Fallout 76, quality of the latter game aside.

Would you call D:OS a sequel to Divine Divinity? Never played DD but it seems more like Diablo, then D:OS. On top of that D:OS isn't Divinity3, it's D:OS.

Disclaimer: I don't mind what BG3 is.

Except the whole point, which I keep saying, is that this is a pre-alpha.
Pre-alphas change drastically all the time. Pre-alphas are not meant to show what the end game will look like.

This is why game commercials and videos usually say 'Pre-alpha/development footage is not an indication of the finished product' in tiny letters.

So asking people to cool their horses and wait until it's bloody playable is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Depending on how you define a "BG game," this could be indisputably true. Also, depending on how you define a "BG game," this could be indisputably false.

How can it not be close to BG when it's based on Dungeons and Dragons and the story is linked to BG1 and 2? You are judging based only on combat and graphics. I get that, but look at the bigger picture, my man.

I mean... I'm glad it has evolved to turn based and its 3D, coz games have to evolve.

Back in the day there were multiple DnD based series, most of them in Infinity Engine: Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Night. All of them were quite distinct, not only in terms of atmosphere, location and story, but purpose, focus, appeal, structure, design. Using DnD setting and systems is just ingredient - how one uses it, and for what purpose is another story.

"Evolved" for you. Devolved for me. Your perception of the game having evolved is not objective truth.

Is the combat system going to drastically change between now and EA? Will party size change? Other major gameplay elements? I can see aesthetic and graphics elements changing, but nothing truly core to how the game plays. So clearly you and I have a very different understanding of what "drastic" changes means. And since I am NOT expecting any drastic changes that are meaningful to me between now and EA, it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate for me to judge and criticize the game as I see it now.

So you're going to come onto the forums and tell people who are excited for the game how much you're not? I don't go to baseball games and tell people how much I don't like baseball, because that would be silly.

Putting aside the matter of combat resolution mechanics - as we must talk about that on another thread - are you actually saying you would prefer a game with sprites on a 2D image with false perspective over the same game with 3D assets and a real perspective? To me, such increased technical fidelity is undoubtedly an improvement rather than a drawback.

Well said.

I can understand core gameplay changes being upsetting, but decades between releases and adapting to a different engine/developer/ruleset can do that.

It's like Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. The change was jarring, the lore messed up, and Fallout fans were peeved. When Fallout New Vegas adapted the same gameplay changes, but with appropriate lore from the original developers it was acceptable and considered the spiritual "Fallout 3" (rather than Van Buren).

Same with GTA changing from an isometric game in GTA2 to what it's become now.

I do think that isometric view has certain advantages over 3D engine. Nothing is obscured, no need to rotate the camera, and geography of the place is easy to remember - experience is smooth and enjoyable. Meanwhile full 3D, rotatable bird of eye view leads to one loosing sence of direction, which leads to waste of time.

Still, there are benefirst to full 3D engine. Larian's games are highly interactive and that is not something one can do in pre-rendered enviroment. Engine they built is pretty excellent, allowing for sizable maps, and seemless transition between interior and exterior, and they use verticality which 2d game can't emulate.

I think there is use and benefit of both, and none of straight up better then another. Larian uses 3D engine and takes an advantage of it, well worth dealing with some of it's frustrations.

Isn't what is to come in BG3 kind of both? DOS2 was a hybrid of isometric and 3D (though more isometric IMO). BG3 looks like the camera can come down even lower, giving more of a 3D feel when wanted. How locking the camera at distance and at a certain angle with no ability to rotate can be seen as better than this is perplexing.

It is an evolution! 3d graphics came after 2d. It's just that you don't like the evolution.

BG3 is a fully-3D modelled environment as far as I can see, that has an adaptive camera system that can visualise in third person behind a character, or draw back to a high angle. It's obviously not new as many RPG and FPS games have had similar capabilities, but you do need to work out how to deal with moving the camera through the environment so you are seeing what you need to without occlusion. If you look back at the beginning of the PAX East reveal after Astarion tries to pick the lock, the camera gets temporarily caught up in the door. That can be particularly difficult in third person perspective when the character is in a confined space, and the camera system can find anywhere "behind" the character that isn't stuck in the scenery.

If you keep a fixed camera orientation, view distance and perspective, even with a 3D environment as D:OS had, you don't need to worry about about coding the logic for camera pathing in the environment, because you can pre-validate how the camera sees the entire map by moving around it in a simple play-test. That usually means there are many parts of a real 3D environment that you can't see directly, which are usually "visualised" in some other way - for example if characters move behind a wall ( from the fixed camera perspective ) you might show them in outline form. If you use a 2D axonometric perspective painted backdrop, as in BG1/2, then you need to use this sort of fixed camera.

I can understand the "getting lost in the environment" problem when play areas get large, but this can usually be resolved by having a command to re-orient to a standard high-angle camera in a known orientation to allow the player to re-familiarise themselves with their position in the overall environment.

It is not the same studio. What did you expect? It's like if you were giving DOS3 to Obsidian. Do you think it would be exactly the continuation of the previous one? Certainly not.

Yep
Looks nothing like Baldur's Gate
Recently, they declared that there would be no day/night cycle in the game, everything exactly like Divinity.
This left me even more disappointed