Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Arguably, for cRPGs, the graphics are actually a lot.
Absolutely. But I have little sympathy for sinking money into features which IMO make the game worse.

Originally Posted by Nyloth
All I can think of is Dragon Age or Mass Effect. And to be honest, I think animations in these games are worse than in BG3. (...) I think the technique of creating animation is different when you can create your own hero, so I don't take games like The Witcher, where you have a static hero.
I really disliked Dragon Age: Origins - and BG3 reminds me a lot of it. A confused title which doesn't know what it wants to be, and at best might become a gateway for better games down the line. ME cinematics, on the other hand. are good. Lets even stick to ME1, which is the least developed and most rough. Let's take this conversation. It's basic in many ways, but it's well put together. Characters are framed well. Animations might be limited, but it uses what it has well. BG3 on the other hand. It's even less of "why don't you do more" and more of "why do you do what you do". Why there is no continuity between shots. Why the rolling on the ground. Is it meant to be awkwardly funny?

And yes, Mass Effect and Witcher3 have somewhat/completely pre-defined and somewhat/not customisable charcters. But that is the point. Different tools, for different games. I don't see a reason to praise Larian, for trying to shove a circle into a cube shaped hole.

But it really doesn't matter if it's a good or bad idea at this point - Larian will have those cutscene, and either they will improve before release, or they will not. But the bard thing reminded me strongly of DA:O camp scene, and this is not a fond memory. At least, I trust Larian not to try to sell me a crappy DLC on launch through an NPC in the camp.