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

Sure, but why bring that to BG3 when you don’t even do day night cycle?

It is an interesting feature (that will mean tons of extra work) that will only be available for a few character builds. It seems like a Larian obsession to replicate a successful formula rather making something new.

A conversation system is already required for the main game. Talking to the dead and animals is merely a conditional way to access that system. That is a far, far simpler thing to do than to create a day/night system which the world reacts to, and developing that system takes a lot more resources and time than the conversation system (which already exists and is a refinement of what Larian has done for their previous two games).

The amount of content needed for speak with dead and speak with animals will be tremendous, but that's the content. The actual system is simple and already exists. Not so much with a day/night system. Even if nothing else reacts, the stealth system would need to work with day/night.

If a day/night system makes it into the game, it'll likely be later into development, and they would not want to announce it unless they're sure they can get it working with a reasonable devotion of time and resources.

That's a fair point. Speaking to animals would be far more interesting, if we could only find said type of animals in certain times of day. For example someones hamster is a witness to the murder, which won't talk to you during the day as it's sleepy, but you can come back at night to talk to it. Of course that requires breaking into the home.

Might a bit too much detail for one optional feature (at least it seems to be like that this time around). Not sure what D&N cycle has to do with dead though.

They made one of the best turn based CRPGs of all times. So you expect they will just skip all their systems when they take on a license from D&D 5, which is a match in heaven for what they can deliver in terms of visuals and mechanics? Hell no. I am glad they are refining their formula on a setting like forgotten realms because I like D&D as much as I like Larian games.

Man, I really hope you can turn off those screen shake effects or I wont be able to play this game. The screen shakes three times when he casts fireball, once when he clicks the icon, once when he "charge/aim" the spell, and once when the fireball hits the ground.

and you look like the exact same account with a handfull of posts that keeps registering here to repeat the same phrases

Yea, you can never go wrong with the basics. Actually, a game where you just idle at the inn at the beginning with no particular objective would be refreshing at this point. All these Chosen One tropes with world saving consequences having me doze off at the desk.

The amount of work to implement speaking to the dead and animals is TREMENDOUS, especially in a fully voiced game with cinematics of the scope of BG3.

And, unlike DOS2, not all characters can speak to the dead. Should not be a priority when the system lacks other basic features.



It is really hard to surpass something you are trying to blindly copy.

Can't say I disagree. Ambition and curiosity are good enough motivators. We can do better than just the inn, though. Something should tie the party together. Just need to have a good premise for a group that can bring characters of all backgrounds together.

I mean, I think it has the same base, but characters look much better. After all, different camera means different cinematics and different LoD

Can be both tbh.

Speaking as a DM myself, I personally steer clear of those kinds of starts and try to give my players some sort of primary thread to follow until they go their own way. Everyone meeting in a bar is kind of cliche frankly, and there are better ways to hook players. Then there's the fact that this is a video game, not a tabletop game. Starting in a bar wrks better around a table because you're with your friends, with new characters and you've all set aside a few hours to play around and have fun together. A video game has to hook you earlier on so that they make sure they've convinced you to continue devoting time to that particular game and not any of the others you could pick from. I convinced a friend of mine who is familiar with cRPGs and TTRPGS to play the first Pillars of Eternity, a game I absolutely adore, and they told me that the beginning was too aimless and didn't give them a clear, coherent goal to be going towards and that killed his sense of investment. And having gone back and played the game again, I can agree that vague beginning was definitely the weakest part of the game.

Also maybe I missed something, but BG3 doesn't seem to be a save the world story, just a save yourself story. You're not chosen ones, you've just been caught up in a bad situation that you need to get yourself out of.

Ok, that’s quite unfair. While BG3 does follow Larian design and uses the same engine, this is not copy and paste. Making “pet pal” not universal skill, which player will have on every playthrough is.... great. D:OS2 needed depth, and better storytelling through Larian’s sandbox design, and BG3 seems already like a step up.

CDPR took 3 witcher3 before they did a really good one. D:OS2 has a lot going for it, but I think there is room to improvement, and hearing Sven talk: they believe the same. Let them explore further what they can do. It might be controversial that they use BG IP for that, but Larian DND game is quite an excellent thing to have.

Aside from a few placeholder assets and a TB combat system, I don't see any similarity between what we've been shown for BG3 and DOS2.

Animations or other aesthetics? Placeholders until we get closer to final release. If they're still around, ask myself if it really is worth getting upset over it.

TB combat? D&D 5E is TB. There are multiple class features that require a TB combat system such as monks using patient defense or step of the wind or rogue's using their cunning action or a bard inspiring others. Changing to RTwP automatically means redesigning all the classes.

Larian as the developer....so what?

Fair enough, but for me (and perhaps others) the aesthetics do matter. And I'm not at all convinced these are placeholders. To be clear, I repeat here what I've said again and again elsewhere, that when I say this game looks too much like D:OS, I do NOT mean the setting or the characters or the story or the rules and mechanics. Yes very obviously these things are different. I literally mean how the game *looks*, as in how it visually looks on my display, and even here NOT in terms of better graphics fidelity (which I love) but rather the style of the various art assets (and no this has nothing to do with the engine), for example how the trees and shrubs and grass and rocks and floors and walls and buildings and so on look. These things have an unmistakable D:OS "look" to them, and for me personally, that's something I strongly dislike.

Although I agree that Larian will possibly reach its full potential at BG4, I think they already are at a position that can create a masterpiece.

Just with a better allocation of resources and choices.

I get what you're saying. It's a common complaint over on the Steam forums, where I'm an active member in the discussions there.

I personally just am not that invested in the aesthetics of a game that's a sequel to a 20 year old, hand-drawn, 2-D, 8-bit computer game that was based on AD&D 2E. I'm personally a lot more interested in the story, setting, lore and whether or not the mechanics for the game work and if the game is fun, and whether or not I'll recognize any references to the previous games.

Maybe run into Minsc and Boo, who were recently released from being petrified. Maybe run into Liche Edwin (since the Red Wizards of Thay are ruled by liches) or maybe Viconia or Aerie. Will there be books or references to the Iron Crises and the Bhaalspawn? Will the influence of those things still be noticeable as we progress?

Those are the links to the older games I'm looking for.

But from this I would have to say you're again missing my point. I'm not saying any of this in the context of those old BG games. I would be saying this even if this game were a new IP game and not BG3. In other words:
Saying BG3 looks too much like the D:OS games.
NOT saying BG3 doesn't look enough like BG1&2.

So, nothing to do with the old BG games. I wouldn't want ANY new non-D:OS game being made by Larian to look like the D:OS games.