In my opinion, BG III shouldn't be trying to copy the limitations of a PC game made in 1998 that was then designed to try and simulate another game designed to be played with pen and paper and people's imaginations. That is an idiotic idea.
BG III needs to stretch what is possible in 2020 with today's computer tech. It ought to foremostly attempt to bring the creativity, sense of awe, excitement and RPG elements of the truly imaginative strengths of D&D to the computer.
One can do this today much better than one could in 1998. The computer can now simulate things that were abstracted greatly in 1998, and it also does not need the abstraction found in D&D to portray real world physics that only happen "in your head" using very abstract simplified rules found in pen and paper.
I doubt whether most dissenters are suggesting a remake of a 20 year old game, that would be stupid given the technological advances we now have. Personally I would like to see more tangible links to the original BG games, whether that be in art direction, story, familiar mechanics, UI.
At the moment these issues really spoil the game for me, mostly in terms of immersion:
-The lack of a day/night/weather cycle (imagine playing a rogue who can't be active at night) -No calendar/clock (which leads me onto the story-apparently we are pressed for time to find a cure for the tadpole in our heads but you never know what hour or day of the week it is) -4 person party limit -The immersion breaking camp mechanic (the party can be half way through the Underdark but simply walks or ports back out to rest at the same place each night?!). Why can we only rest at night? Why can we not rest in our current location? -Lack of subtlety- Our companions want to jump our bones almost immediately and most have such crazy backgrounds, it's a little overwhelming. No doubt some of the other characters in store will tone down proceedings a little (though apparently there is a werewolf in store too-what are the odds, a party of 4 with a vampire and a werewolf?) -Waystone portals-I'm all for the convenience of fast travel but just keep it simple with waypoints, not magical portals that apparently everyone else in Faerun is totally oblivious to.
Originally Posted by Balls
Larian was chosen for this game because of their skills at portraying exciting, turn based combat that features a tactical, thinking approach and the use of strategy in a fantasy setting. They are quite good at this. Their earlier game has spells and physical combat, under a different ruleset than D&D. Upon moving to Baldur's Gate, they have changed to D&D's use of the game's races, classes, spells, and combat rules, as well the D&D setting.
There are elements of combat I like in BG3 but the ridiculous jumping, 'King of the Hill' tactics to gain advantage and endless explosive barrels/consumables/surfaces would suggest a strong counterpoint to your argument.
Originally Posted by Balls
BG III, in my opinion anyway, is instantly memorable. It is specific, creative and unlike anything I've played before.
At it's core, I think, this is the finest, most intimate, splashy, immersive and exciting RPG based around Dungeons & Dragons ever.
We ought not condemn it's originality- it's approach if you will, if it works well and is fun as all get out.
I think this will be one of the great RPG's, upon completion.
I'm glad that you feel this way and I have high hopes the game will be excellent once finally finished but as things stand, I find the story, characters, UI and a host of other things flawed. I truly hope to be proven wrong eventually because I am crying out to lose myself for endless hours in a game like this, like I did with BG1 & 2.
