Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General How does BG3 compare to BG2?

What are your impressions of the current state of BG3 compared to BG2 (NOT DOS2, NOT D&D 5e...) Story, characters, items, magic, dialogue, combat, atmosphere etc...Is it more fun/interesting , challenging, deep...?

I would say it's too early to judge. We've only got most of act 1, there are still areas that are part of act 1 but you can't access them as of yet... which isn't even equivalent to full reign of Athkatla, close but not there. I would say BG3 is closer to DAO, than BG2, but it's got potential.

So far I enjoy it, but it's got some flaws, bugs etc. Like main story is left under a big mysterious question mark, we got some leads and that about it. Combat, as a long term fan of real time with pause is actually quite enjoyable, don't need to spam space bar so often and you can technically play the fights out with one hand only.

The companions are cool, but very polarizing. You either love some of 'em or you hate them (and they hate you). What I personally don't like about the companions are the origin stories, they're all a bit too special and overshadow the custom made player character by a landslide. Atmosphere wise, this game reminds me a lot of NWN2, the hell looks like hell and is amazing, although I would tone down the color palette of the entire game to be a tiny bit darker. Cause yes, the graphics are stunning, BUT it's all so colorful and bright, notable exceptions being the hell, the bog and the Underdark.

Caveat: I played BG 2 from BG, so I was already invested in the characters when I started BG 2.

That said, it's Early Access, so some of what I'm about to lay out is to be expected as they iron out polish and optimization. So I'm getting occasional freezes, even when just walking around in the environment. My cooling fans get to kicking hard after about 30 minutes, even after messing with the settings to try to tone it down. The combat is all over the place. Some encounters seem really easy, and others really hard. Some of this is down to the dice rolls, which is to be expected, it is, after all, based on dice rolls. I've been one shotted by a particular mob, and then had it miss so much that it seems like it's dice were loaded. Same mob, same party. I don't know that I can say "more fun", but it is fun. However, that's because I was way invested in BG 2, more than anything in particular with this game. But there are reasons outside of the game in general for that. Suffice to say it got me through a really bad time in my life, and call it good.

There is plenty of depth, it's not just a mindless button mashing style of game, which is great. The magic is similar, but not the same. That's going to come down to a different rule set. There are some nice magical items, but so far it's been relatively tame, as in the "good stuff" isn't dropping like candy, but is available, if you look for it. Shops do carry some +1 items, but it's not a case of "get to this town, and everyone will be fully equipped" because you made so much gold on the vendor items that you just buy it all. A lot of it just isn't there, but is, instead, out in the world, encouraging you to actually explore the map to find them.

The story is abbreviated, but we're only working in Act 1, so that's a given. It's an interesting premise, however, and does have me curious as to where it's going to go. The dialog has been good. It can be heavily reliant on dice rolls too, even if there's a "No Fail" type condition, it will still make you roll, perhaps that will be looked at in the coming months. I like that the Origin characters aren't automatically fawning over the Player Character. I suspect that that will carry over into release, when we can actually play them as well. There's no reason for absolute trust, and the lack of that trust is welcome.

Overall, I'm enjoying the experience, and there are some nice surprises too. I don't want to get spoilery, but there are things that had me going "I didn't see that coming" in a good way. For all that, it is, at the end of the day, Early Access. If you're looking for a great, polished experience, it's not here, yet. I suspect, based on past experience with Larian, that it will be, but right now they're trying to get feedback on what needs to be adjusted/changed to achieve that, and other feedback. So if you're looking for a "buy/don't buy" review, I can't give you one.

About the comparison to Dao - bg3 would be lucky to be like Dao.

Personally I feel much more bg1 vibes than bg2 so far. which makes sense. Bg2 at least for the first few hours (I would say that much more) is set in a big civilised city. So far bg3 is set up like the first game, lots of wilderness, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It also much more similar to bg1 in its quest structure. A lot of strange encounters on the road.

Now I'm not worried at all about the gameplay. The combat is already tons of fun, and based of what I know about Larian, I assume they will put most of their efforts into refining and improving it. The biggest potential issue is the story and characters, and more specifically, Larian design philosophy which tends to prefer cool gameplay mechanics over cohesive narrative.

Already the game suffers a lot from the insistence of Larian to implement their origin characters here, and at times it seems like the game is struggling itself to deliver an interesting and suspenseful story. Aside from that, Larian's obsession with exploration and experimentation in their games already makes some parts of the story disjointed and unclear, and some of the story bits we do have are quite weak. All of these problems might not be such a huge issue for people who likes to play games this way, people who want to push the game's boundaries as much as they can, but I prefer a more restrictive experience with a more flashed out story.

As of now, the only resemblance between the two is the world it plays in. There are no remarks, notes or anything really related to any of the predecessors. So at this point in time the title Baldur's Gate 3 is misleading. It should instead be called: "A Forgotten Realms Role-playing Game", because this is the only connection, the setting.
Now this is likely subject to change, as we are in the first act with little interaction with the outside world or lore. There might have been a nod towards previous games, that I might have missed, but nothing that would bring back memories of olde.

As for the other things you mentioned: Depending on your knowledge on DoS games, 5e edition, D&D in general, as well as your own level of inquisitive mind, the game is either ridiculously challenging or extremely easy. It is not very accessible or transparent. Now BG 2 was worse, as it did not tell you a lot either, but I played it on Normal and Hard multiple times without ever using one skill other than spells (offensive spells mostly). I still have no idea what I did 20 years ago and every couple of years when I replayed it. I only learned in 2016 what 1d6 actually refers to and only in 2018 what Thac0 means.
This means I finished the games for the story, the gameplay was just icing on the cake and would have offered me a great experiences over and over, had I ever wanted that. BG 3's story, when compared to the first act of BG 2 is...unremarkable. Irenicus alone, makes for a great villain and entry to the story. The child of a god thing of BG1 was nothing new, but was decently presented. BG3 brings no villain and no new storyline, a parasite in the head is a common trope of stories. It is also decently presented, though, with a lot of cutscenes and a general tendency to visual storytelling over textual. However BG2 made me feel invested right from the start, although one could argue that at the age of 15, it was easier to impress me, although many other games still manage that. BG3 has not, so far.
The companions are, very special in BG3. So special that they overshadow the PC in how remarkable they are. They are also pretty edgy, so much that it makes me roll my eyes and I am remarkably uninvested and indifferent to any of them. This is not much different with the BG1 companions who often were just supposed to fill a role, but they had stories of their own that were rather relatable. In BG2 I had much more investment right from the start. Minsc and Jaheira I think never left my party at all. I always admired her and I thought Minsc was hilarious. I always romanced Aerie, but I hear the other romances were also satisfying. I loved all the banter and the amount of meaningful banter they had in between giving them more depth. Korgan and Aerie come to mind, two polar opposites, yet when Aerie breaks Korgan concedes that all he tried to do was make her fend for herself. Or Edwin in both parts. PoE characters also come to mind, they fit in the same role. Each had depth and character, yet many did not have an iconic background. They just were mercenaries, students, artists regular dudes with regular lives and relatable problems and also dire consequences.
BG 3 has interactions, and yeah some do not like each other, and maybe one of them leaves or dies or disapproves your action. I just do not care, though. It feels like a Telltale Game. If Minsc would advise me not to pick up the Sword of Superpower +6, I would have listened to him. I could not care less what Shadowheart thinks. Now this might also be, because of the first act and apparently you might not keep all origin characters, so they might be a bit like additional PCs more than actual companions, and the real guys are added in later acts. So that would explain the shallow, yet super special companions.

Gear-wise and possibility wise, the game seems great. I have seen players run with gear I have no idea where they got it from and there seems an awful lot of min-maxing to do, even within the first act. There also seems to be a lot of replayability since you seem to constantly lock yourself out of content, if you take certain routes and decisions.
From a gameplay mechanic point of view it seems alright with sheer endless potential. The UI and the general comfort is cumbersome to awful (e.g. party movement), but these things are also likely to be fine-tuned. There is a reason why the DoS games were so remarkably well-received. The full game will likely be a very good RPG.

If you are looking for a true successor to BG2 to bring back that feeling, because you like the story and the characters and the world, I would advise to not purchase or play yet. It will likely be disappointing if this is the main reason, like it was for me. If you are a DoS lover, that wants a fresh world go for it. If you are a D&D lover that is not bothered with some freedom taken from the ruleset, you will feel right at home.

I can clearly say it is the closest game to BG2 that I ever played and my favorite RPG of the last 10 years.

worse then BG2 by far. Not coming even close.
Simply you ask to early as we have only a first act and this not a game but a tech demo.

So far this tech demo only shows a linear approach to quests.
The characters are all eggy and every one and everything is "special".
The maps are small and super crampd. Every two steps something explodes. Its like made for ADS children that cant sit still for two seconds.
No day night progression no sense of urgency no sense of time progression.
Loot out of your ass of super special stuff.
Barrels every where that explode even more.

There is a promise of a rpg but the execution so far is terrible.
Its a tech demo after all but if this si showing off where we are heading it wont be great.
It get even worse with what kind of people it attracts, bloated HP enemys(a gobbling has more HP then a GOD or grand demon/devil should have in DnD) are less of concern then petting the dog or what they can have virtual sex with.
Retarded fanboism about VR characters and non sens stuff is pushed before things that have a by far more grander impact on the game at all.

I give the tech demo a meh out of mhhh.

You should really try out Pathfinder.

Story > The story is very different. Time of troubles, Bhaalsapawn, mindflayers are a central part of BG1, but are optional enemies on most of the BG2 part.

Items > BG2 has more depth on items. Clay golems require blunt magical weapons, plate armor have higher AC vs slashes thank blunt and makes sense that maces > swords vs armor

Magic > There are over 300 spells on BG2 and each one is unique. The magic system is far more old school. Spells are far more deadlier, but remember. Every spell which an PC can cast, an NPC can cast.

Also, because of WotC panic retcons when they botched 4E everything you did in the previous 2 BG games is for naught as all Bhaalspawn eventually died and Bhaal returned.

In BG 2 I felt like my character was the main protagonist in an epic tale. In BG 3 that is not the case. Now the tale may be epic (to early to tell) but my character is no more the main protagonist than his companions. The story is not about him it is about us -as in him and his companions-.

Also, there is no day/night cycle. So, there is no waiting until nightfall to infiltrate a camp or creep through a city unnoticed. Or waiting for daytime to explore a graveyard with a low-level party. In BG 2 one place could be wildly different during the day and during the night.

Don’t get me wrong I am thoroughly enjoying BG 3 but so far, I am not getting any BG 2 or BG 1 vibes at all. The only similarities I see so far is that it takes place in the same world

I have a lot of criticism about the game as it is right now. But some of you are not being fair. Day night circle is at best a nice feature, an annoyance at worst. Adding day night circle simply because it was in BG is kinda stupid (hey poe and pathfinder). Not that Larian doesn't add game mechanics for stupid reasons.
Both pathfinder and pillars of eternity are nice, but at least in my opinion they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you need more than to copy paste Baldur's Gate gameplay to create a successor.

Yeah, I would put BG 3 in the "nice" category as well. I do think PoE is a very good and true successor of BG2, though. The story is good and sort of new, the atmosphere is fantastic, the gameplay is accessible and decent, it is nicely ported into the current time, while still making nods to the spiritual predecessor. I still think BG2 is the better game, but I attribute that mostly to my 15 year old self. I would also say that the companions of PoE are on average better than the ones of BG2.
What is interesting though, is that I replayed BG2 about ten times (although only finishing it twice), I never replayed PoE, as I feel fully satisfied with the experience it gave me. Anyhow, I do not know why I replied particularly to you, probably just wanted to defend PoE.

If I would compare the first acts of PoE and BG 3 though directly I would always choose Pillars. The bleak atmosphere and immersion is so much more breathtaking to me, Aloth and Eder are awesome companions and the story grips me way harder than the tadpole. What BG3 has though, which sadly is only a tertiary reason to me, is the gameplay and possibilities aspect, which would be very intriguing, if Larian actually did explain and show stuff in depth. This is what I am most interested in this game right now. I suspect there will be a few nods to BG2 and maybe Minsc, but I doubt the story will present anything more than standard fantasy setting.

I find that DAO was much closer to BG1/2 than this game is.

I never bought any of the other Dragons Age games since how disappointing the demo for the second one was, along with the unforgettable 'WHEN YOU PUSH A BUTTON SOMETHING AWESOME HASTA HAPPEN''.

It straight up felt like Bioware were 100% trolling from DA2 onwards.

About DAO: this is a game that was designed as a spiritual successor for bg3. It's only conjecture, but I think there only two reason it wasn't bg3 - 1. licenceing issues - bioware didn't have the rights for BG at the time.
2. Bioware's desire for independence - at the time bioware created two settings, DAO's settings and Mass Effect's. They did it because they didn't want to be constrained by limitations they didn't create for themselves.

About POE - I honestly never finished the first game. It was just super boring. I did finish deadfire and enjoyed it very much. However, I really don't think the story is as unique and innovative as people say. The gods angle is something BG did, and did it much better.

About bg3 and whether it is a true successor - the gist of it is that it is too early to tell. And anyway, I'll say it again - the greatness of BG games doesn't stem from rtwp, day night cycle, or the number of optional races. These things are part of it, but alone they wouldn't have been the stuff of legend that is the BG saga. But that's just me and my priorities as a player.

I managed to finish POE 1, but found the second to be too boring right from the start.

It seems like it tries too hard to just be a BG clone forgoing staying interesting rather than just feeling like a slog to play.

Larian had the right idea with super condensing everything on the map, so theres always something interesting right sbout to happen rather than having to keep on wandering through loads of wlderness and areas.

A mature indie game called Bastard Bonds handles having a BG1/2 like map while keeping it highly interesting and fun to play, but it is very simplified such as the magic attribute only giving a single ranged spell attack, and having the same singular attack and tanking mechanics, as well as the game straight up looking like gay porn. But the whole game stays fun and addictive to keep on exploring.

All I can say is that if you go into this game as a fan of BG1&2 you will be sorely disappointed. The game has taken many steps in the wrong direction and it's for a reason I don't see discussed very often. D&D, at it's core, is attempting to create a simulation that is as close to reality as possible. In pen and paper we have no choice but to interact directly with the mechanics but video games offer so many alternatives and ways to avoid doing this in order to increase the efficacy of the simulation. BG3 makes no attempt at this in similar ways to DivOS. Mechanics are broadcast and shoved into your face constantly. The game breaks the 4th wall shamelessly. Older games did what they could to hide the artificial nature of the simulation but Larian doesn't seem to think this is worth doing despite how easy it is and how many people are already complaining about things such as dice rolls. I'm not sure if anyone would disagree with me when I say that immersion is king in RPGs and this game is constantly fighting to pull you out of immersion and remind you that it's just variables, logic gates and thresholds and that has made it a very poor experience for me overall.

I'll admit I am kind of disappointed to hear there is no day/night cycle. Maybe this is something Larian will add later? That was definitely a cool story aspect of BG ... Narlen Darkwalk and Mook would meet you only at night!

And the background music changed accordingly, which I thought was very cool. How is the music in BG III so far?

The worse:
Story hook isn't as strong
Larian's changes to the rules mess with combat balance
Many of the sidequests here seem pointless. You try to find a way to get the tadpole out only to figure out that nobody can actually do it.
as many people here said, BG3 having a day/night cycle could be awesome, especially since light conditions actually affect hit chance in this game.
controlling the party isn't as intuitive. Clicking on a party member speaks to them instead of selecting them. You also can't drag select, instead you have to use the chain party system for grouping.

The better:
you can actually side with the bad guys.
Combat arenas are more interesting than just a flat plane
lots of hidden nooks and crannies and secret passages.
better verticality
better stealth
5E rules allow for more interesting use of positioning.
5E rules prevent buff stacking before every hard fight.

It's a mixed bag
some of it sounds like pure BG goodness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pwrEnOUSA

but other stuff just sounds like DOS2 stuff. Complete with the same exact "ethnic" instruments.