So what are some of those ingredients? In no particular order:
Possibly the biggest one: turn-based combat. BG1&2 had enough of a combat focus for the combat system to matter. Be in the TB or the RTwP camp - this change is huge for the gameplay. It's more of a change than anything in the DA series, for example, and those games suffered from game style shifts across the series. Still, as much as I hate TB, I think you can make a proper BG game that's also TB. Won't elaborate on this, since, as vometia reminded us, there is the dedicated thread for such discussion.
4 vs 6 party members. Another big one, though less dramatic. Also a matter of heated debate.
Also a huge one and perhaps the most obvious: shift to (non-top-view/isometric) 3D, more than that, with cinematics.
The UI/2D art style is completely different. Not just a matter of modern UI/prettier graphics, it's the art direction.
Time. BG3 is timeless. BG1&2 had day/night cycle with the world changing dynamically, as well a weather system.
The music is different. Good, but different.
The origin system: it results in two "alterations" in comparison to the classic games. One is the dramatically reduced companion count. Part of the companion appeal in BG1&2 is their variety and ability to choose just the right party. Another thing is that if you have companions-as-protagonists, you can't have plot focused on your custom character, like in BG1&2.
My 2 cents: - DnD is turn based per definition. In so far the bigger question is why did BG1 chose rtwp? So far I have not seen a real time game thats based on 5E. I think this is harder to put in real time with the action/bonus action/reaction mechanic. Congratulations to kingmaker for a rtwp game that is very close to PnP rules and also has a TB mode, though Pathfinder is DnD 3.75E, not 5E.
- I think PnP DnD was designed for 4 players plus DM. I have no idea why BG1 chose 6. Because of the success of the IE games many players somehow consider this standart. There are many different RPGs with different party size.But I admit its part of the BG feel.
- BG 1+2 was 2D while BG3 is 3D and very vertical. The ability to move and rotate the camera is a must have now. I admit a kind of isometric camera would be good. The camera in BG3 definitely needs some improvement. suggestion: just copy DA:O
- I agree that the UI could be much better and it would be nice if it looks closer to BG1+2. I am not a huge fan of endless hotbars, by the way. Some changes need to be done (different spell system with the ability to cast spell at higher level, all classes have active abilities now, all classes have all skills, action reaction and bonus sction stuff, . . . ) but even then it could look better and closer to Bg1+2. About the general art style, its hard to compare a low resolution 2D game with a 3D game were verticality is very importent. In BG1+2 you had the character portraits and the rest was up to your imagination. In BG3 you can see your chars in a realistic way from all directions and you see their face often. Another thing is DnD 2E vs 5E. As far as I can tell BG3 is quite close to the official 5E art style. I am not an expert for the differences between editions, especially if we look beyond game mechanics.
- A day/night cycle would be nice to have, but apart from encounters with vampires it had very little effect in BG2 and BG 1+2 had very few timed quests and even there the time limit was very large.
- Music: No sure who has the rights for the music of BG1+2 (wotc, the computer game company or someone else)
- You are free to ignore the origin system. If you create a custom char and consider the others as normal companions it feels similar to most other RPG
about world map design: Technically BG1 was one huge map, it was just separated into several maps because of technological limitations. With current technology it would be possible to make BG1 with one huge 3D map and only some indoor areas or dungeons are a single different map, like BG3 is now.
But its good that you could give some arguments about why BG3 has a different feel. Apart from a better looking UI it will be very hard to get closer to the BG1+2 feeling.
Yes! This exactly. You said it much better than I did.
I believe the day/night thing is being addressed isn't it? I was under the impression that's why we get tells from the companions about being "tired" at different intervals depending on the companion. It's early access, not all features are live yet.
As to the 'openness' of the world, has there been any confirmation that it will be as closed off as it is now? We're still in EA so the map boundaries we have in place are there because anything past that is still 'under construction'.
The camera angles, turn based style and Origin player characters are *completely in the hands of the player*. If you like it use it, if you don't, then don't! Options being added have not removed the ability to play 'oldschool', they have added options for those who prefer the choice.
The party size is *per 5E*. 4-6 means FOUR or more. We have 4, and there are occasional additions like Glut which ups the party size. That's accurate according to 5E rules.
We're (according to the existing story) heading for BG on leaving the current accessible area, so there will almost certainly be towns/cities with inns etc in future content. Again, we're in EA.
I'm really grateful that people have given some arguments re nostalgia and 'feel' though, it does help to explain the sentiment that something is lacking. I was very much the same when DA:2 came out. I *hated* it for months. It just didn't feel like DA, despite being in the same world, with the same history and lore, and the same general art style. It was set in a geographically different place, with a different cultural emphasis and it just didn't give the same feeling while playing.
