There is this theory that reality isnt real but a construct of each individuals mind. I dont know how true that is but this thread would be a good example as evidence for that.
I cannot understand how people disagree when people say "BG3 looks like DOS2" when it so clearly does. The reason why is because Larian use the same network of tools to create the BG3 as they did with DOS2. And I dont have a problem with that, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to create new tools when the tools they have works perfectly fine for the job. But to deny this is the case because DOS doesnt have the same combat system as 5e D&D is mindblowing to me. This is like saying "IWD1 doesnt look like IWD2" because they used two different editions of D&D.
My viewpoint exactly. To me, BG3 looks like a D&D game, just not one that looks like it belongs to the BG collection. This could probably be solved by: A) modifying the user interface to look more similar to BG 1&2, and B) Reusing some of the classic symbols used in the older games (such as the casting symbol, etc). Ofcourse, when it comes to video games, I am not a fan of extreme tactical combat; if I was, I would play Fire Emblem or Chess. Whenever I play BG1-2, IWD 1-2, PoE 1-2, etc. I choose to mostly only control my own character and let AI take control of the other 5 party members (The AI in IWD 2 was amazing; it had like 8 choices per class, and they all worked as advertised). Because BG3 is going to be turn-based (with likely no option for RTwP), I imagine combat will involve me controlling my character and then pressing 'skip', 'unpause', or 'end turn' 3 separate times, but we'll see.
