Combat system? DnD 5e with still adjusting the perks of the system.
User interface? Originally similar to their DO titles, now distinctively BG3
Party size? DnD 5e
Party management system? Greatly readjusted in the last Patch.
It's supposed to be
Baldur's Gate III, not the definitive adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons.
As for the user interface and party management system, they're still closer to the Original Sin games than to the Baldur's Gate games.
In some ways, that's good, but in others it isn't, and they're still unlike Baldur's Gate.
Lack of a day/night cycle? Dragon Age Origins also miss out on this one for the same reason. They would have to re-shoot all of the campsite cinematics. Also the game has a concealment system that would have to be recreated entirely with a day/night cycle. I am fine with the current set up. Day=adventuring, night= party banter.
I finished Dragon Age: Origins, but I don't remember a lot of it, so I'm not sure what you mean.
If you're trying to say that it would be daytime while they happen, that isn't true.
About the concealment system, if you mean how lighting is part of the stealth mechanics, I don't see any reason why that system would have to be recreated.
A lot of interactive objects? I would say intractability is one of the great strengths of BG3, compared to for instance Solasta where everything feels stale and static.
I would agree.
The degree of interactivity is one of the elements from Original Sin that Baldur's Gate would benefit from.
Likewise for environmental effects.
Story structure? Like the three part story structure that is universal to western storytelling?
Not just the separation of the story into parts, but...
The beginning part where the player and other party members are prisoners on a ship that gets destroyed.
The player and party members being scattered afterwards and saved by a mysterious force.
The player ending up on a beach after the ship is destroyed.
The conflict between a corrupt leader and others in the first act.
The search for ways to remove the collars/remove the parasites and leave the area.
And apparently...
The permanent loss of party members who aren't with the player at some point around the first and second acts.
There are also other parallels.
Party member names? Bullshit...
Party member personalities? See my previous point.
The names from Larian seem to focus more on words and actual variants of names.
Regarding personalities, I haven't seen much about the party members (and Shadowheart, Lae'zel and Wyll are my main party members at the moment), but from what I have seen, they seem like remixed versions of the Original Sin II party members (from what I can remember of them at least).
Right now, I'd say that:
Astarion:
Backstory elements - Sebille
Personality - ...
Shadowheart:
Backstory elements - Lohse
Personality - Ifan
Gale:
Backstory elements - Fane
Personality - ...
Lae'zel:
Backstory elements - ...
Personality - The Red Prince
Wyll:
Backstory elements - The Red Prince
Personality - Lohse
Yes, Larian is not copying a game from before the turn of the millenium, that's true. They are adapting DnD 5e into a pc game that has strong narrative ties to the BG saga.
But, honestly, your argument that everything would be solved if they abandoned their turn-based design, it is just laughable, I mean What???? DnD is a turn-based system. They cannot implement it without their turn-based design. This is a tired argument. BG3 is a turn-based game, as it is an adaptation of a turn-based ttrpg. Deal it with already.
If it's an adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons rather than a new Baldur's Gate game and
must be turn-based because of that (I doubt it), then they shouldn't call it "Baldur's Gate III", just like they didn't call the turn-based spin-offs of Divinity "Divinity III-V" but "Divinity: Original Sin I&II", and like the action spin-offs of Baldur's Gate weren't called "Baldur's Gate III&IV" but "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I&II", which showed that they were spin-offs.
There is only one thing i can say to people who keep repeating that this is Original Sin 3 ...
Maybe, just maybe ... you should have listen to Swen, when he specificaly warned us about: if you are not quite sure, if this game will be for you, you should not buy it right from the start, but wait for some reviews first.
You can only blame yourself and your own inpatience. -_-
People are trying to tell Larian that their game isn't pushing the right buttons to really feel like a sequel to two legendary games whose name this game is borrowing, and you feel it makes sense to tell them essentially to fuck off with their perspective? To got eat a can of shit for expecting a BG franchise game to push the old BG buttons?
What's the point of that? What do you hope to achieve, aside from just annoying people?
They don't need your consent personally to create a sequal for the BG saga. They needed WotC's and they got the green light after their pitch with them. I am a fan of the original saga and I love what Larian has been creating so far. I don't want a slavish and uninspired clone of the old games. I want a rpg that could mean as much to a modern generation of players as the original saga meant back then. I want a pc experience that mirrors the joy of playing DnD with my mates. And so far it seems Larian will deliver that...
In other words, you don't want another Baldur's Gate game.
You want a faithful adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons.
In which case, as I said, Baldur's Gate III should be called "Baldur's Gate: Dungeons & Dragons", "Dungeons & Dragons: Baldur's Gate" or something like that.
As for not needing consent from the fans of the series, that's true, but it's not really nice to take an established series and basically turn it into a different series.
That said, I don't really mind
that much since Original Sin isn't a bad series.
I'm more upset about the role-playing aspects of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout being simplified with each game, but that's neither here nor there.I just hope that they'll fix and add more things to Baldur's Gate III.
BG + BG2 were cool relative to their time and age. I loved them, too, but they are not state of the art anymore.
Technology and game design have evolved since then, this also includes (of course) the things developers can do when implementing game mechanics.
I have played BG2 for a while again during the last few days - and I honestly have to say: the magic is gone. BG2 feels clunky, unpolished, unwelcoming - but this is seen from the perspective of a post D:OS2-gamer, of course.
What I'm trying to say: being stuck in the past and wanting things to stay the same forever doesn't work. I see BG3, since we have good dice rolling (weighted dice, ability to improve dice roll outcomes) which enables player agency instead of having your story dictated by RNG, as it was at the start of EA, as a culmination, or a "best of", between D&D and the advances video game science and technology have made since BG2 came out.
And no, neither Solasta nor WotR are really good comparisons, both are, in comparison with BG3 even as it is now in EA, very "unpolished", with Solasta feeling more like a "tabletop simulator" instead of an actual, deep, AAA-level computer game.
Yes, both are really good games, but they are not even in the same ballpark, production-value and game-design wise, as BG3.
And also, yes, I agree that BG3 is not unsimilar to D:OS2 - but in my most honest opinion this is a good thing. D:OS2 is still one of the best video game RPGs that were ever produced. Modern and still a somewhat "old school" RPG.
Honestly, D&D rules are good as a guideline and general idea, but they don't make a AAA level video game. It's just too bland when playing alone, much more spice is needed, which Larian adds by utilizing the virtues already implemented in D:OS2 and then some.
Also, coming back to D:OS2 once again: this game was groundbreaking. In my opinion D:OS2 actually reshaped the meaning of the term "CRPG", because it really brought together the best of both worlds: CRPG gameplay on one hand, the possibilities of video games in the 21st century on the other hand. It is a game that welcomes even people who are usually put off by the stoutness of what "CRPG" meant in the past, which is also a good thing. Still it's not "toned down" or "dumbed down", quite the opposite. It just leaves out the artificial elitism which only serves as a "gatekeeper".
I haven't played Solasta or Pathfinder, so the quality of those games isn't known to me, but I wouldn't exactly call Baldur's Gate III polished at the moment.
As to Baldur's Gate I&II, they're obviously not going to be state-of-the-art by modern standards.
Many of the games from that time are now seen as clunky, unpolished and unwelcoming.
However, that doesn't mean that a modern take on the series would be as clunky, unpolished and unwelcoming.
I'd think that people who like turn-based games would understand that, considering that there have been many people who have called turn-based systems boring, outdated and unwelcoming and have said that those who want long-running series to still have turn-based systems are stuck in the past, but it seems that a lot of people don't know or remember that.
There is only one thing i can say to people who keep repeating that this is Original Sin 3 ...
Maybe, just maybe ... you should have listen to Swen, when he specificaly warned us about: if you are not quite sure, if this game will be for you, you should not buy it right from the start, but wait for some reviews first.
You can only blame yourself and your own inpatience. -_-
Even if people say that the game is Original Sin III, it doesn't mean that those who are saying that didn't know that the game would be like that before they bought it, or that they don't like the Original Sin series.
