I find it odd that people say a game does or does not look like Baldur's Gate. Any game, no matter who the developer is, would be using modern graphics and technology so there won't be hand-drawn, 2-D, 8-bit Infinity Engine graphics or UI.
If it wasn't Larian, it would be Obsidion, Owlcat, or maybe none of them and we would't be getting a sequel because Wizards of the Coast would say no to each and every one of them. If it was one of them, it would still be following D&D 5E rules because that's what Wizards of the Coast want.
I honestly feel if another company was making BG3 the complaints wouldn't be "they're just remaking Divinity" but instead would be "They're trying to copy Divinity!"
Obsidian and Owlcat games (whatever they're TB or not, or both) are way closer to what BG1/2 feels and looked like and they also use more modern graphics and technology. I don't think lot of people asked for 2-D and 8-bit infinity engine graphics or UI, even if that's something lots of you seems to think.
I guess if one of them was chosen by WoTC, whatever the rules, no one would even think about DoS.
But they're NOT D&D 5E, which Wizards of the Coast wanted BG3 to be. D&D 5E has class features that are reliant on a TB combat system. The entire system would have to be reworked from the ground up for practically every single class to move away from a TB combat system.
Which means that it would no longer be D&D 5E.
Maybe someone could have made it amazing, maybe not, but as of right now Divinity: Original Sin 2 is the current king of the crpgs, Obsidion and Owlcat have acknowledged that they relied too much on the nostalgia train.
Pillars of Eternity 2 had a lot of kickstarter support but flopped in sales. Pathfinder: Kingmaker sales went up AFTER a TB mod was made, then they patched in TB mode because of its popularity.
I honestly think if Wizards had gone with either of them, it would still be TB, because DOS2 did so much better than either P:K or PoE2.
I dont understand what version of D&D has to do what the game looks like. If PF:K ran 5E it would look identical except for some minor UI adjustments.
Aside from the character and monster models in the Monster Manual looking exactly like what has been shown off so far, not much, but BG3 is being made from the same engine as DOS2, which will likely be have enough changes at the time of final release so I fail to see the point of complaining about it now. Aside from aesthetics in a few graphics and assets, nothing about BG3 and DOS 2 are remotely similar. In UI, in-game mechanics, setting and lore or characters.
I look at the mechanics and story of a game a lot more than I look at graphics or UI until it gets closer to final release. Any issues I may have in the early access, I can report to Larian and be done with it. I'm not expecting a finished product, or even the graphics as it stands now to be the final graphics. I can look at DOS2 footage on youtube from early access and boot it up and play it now and see huge differences in graphics, gameplay, UI and other features.
If Owlcat were making it, and used the same engine for BG3 as they did for Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and it went into early access, I expect we'd have the same complaints. "It looks too much like Pathfinder Kingmaker. They are clearly using the Baldur's Gate name to do a quick cash-grab." Same is true for Obisidion and if they used Pillars of Eternity's engine.
Let the finished product be the metric we base the game off of, not pre-release, beta footage and gameplay that will change as development continues.
Remember, Pathfinder is an offshoot of D&D, based off of edition 3.5, so monster models in Pathfinder would be entirely reliant on its version of D&D, and different from earlier or later versions.
"I used my last magic poo to check in on my daughter." Scanlan Shorthalt.
