- First of all, maps are absolutely out of the question - I think a lot of people, possibly including some at WoTC, would be furious if Larian would re-use some of D:OS' locations. But - the thing about BG3 is that it is set in a universe with almost 50 years of accumulated lore, across all DnD editions. You need almost no creativity when it comes to map design - you just take whatever map(s) for this area have been created before, either official or fanfics, and build on top of that, adding a bit of flavour here and there. It's not a very demanding, intensive process - Larian could have generated them and then applied some manual polish, for all we know.
- Characters - are they really new? Astarion, just like his predecessor, greets us with a knife at our necks. Why Larian reused this bit? Did they run out of psychedelics, because delivery chain got disrupted due to covid? This is my biggest gripe so far - this, and countless others like it. I feel cheated when I see characters, re-skinned and renamed, behaving exactly like they did in the previous product of the same company. I don't care if their hair's colour and / or dialogue lines are different this time - it's the same character as before, and they behave more or less the same as they did before. Deja-vu.
- I can't really say much about quests and writing, as I never played any other Larian's game before (for more than 5 minutes, anyway). This can be better analysed by someone who did. Also, not sure what you call "conquest".
- Ship - maps have already been addressed above. At the same time, a ship is a ship, even if it looks different.
- Ruleset. I think even Larian perfectly understands that they can't pass a D:OS clone as a DnD game. So yes, they added some new mechanics that create a certain degree of familiarity for those who know what DnD is. The emphasis, however, is on "some". I can only assume that the stuff available from EA's day 1 was simple to add. The rest is problematic, due to the engine (probably being a Gordian knot made of glass at this point).
An example: how much time it took them to implement Skill Expertise - almost 2 years into EA, innit? I haven't been around for a while, so feel free to correct me, but afaik we are still waiting for proper multi-attack and reactions. - The list can go on, but Niara has already described the fundamental issues with similarities, in a much more succinct and lucid way than I will ever be able to.
These shameless "borrowings" will be completely unnoticed, of course, for everyone who didn't play D:OS2
and doesn't know about them. Me? I detest cheaters.
Yes, but none of it constitutes clone and definitely not a reskin. If anything in many of those similarities the skin is what is the most similar. Take the opening ship sequences. Ignore for a second the "skin" or theming of the sequence (being a prisoner on a ship under attack and having to escape) - once you scrap that, how similar are they really?
That they choose to repeat that much from their highly acclaimed D:OS2 I think it tells something about Larian priorities - I think it goes in line with how little they think of importance of the narrative. Mario games often repeate same level theming but they are clearly not copies. I suspect Larian might be thinking the same way - "We did D:OS2, how can we make it better?", rather then thinking of a new story to tell.
As to combat, yes, it is not faithful adaptation of D&D 5e, but it's not D:OS2 system either. It just not - I am trying to come up with something that would be same, and I can't. Stats work differently, there are classes, to-hit works differently, THERE ARE HALF ASSED REACTIONS, which is not something that existed in D:OS2, surfaces for the most part work differently, skills aren't on cooldown, there are saving throws, no armor system, the game doesn't use action points. And so on and so on. Do they feel similar? In many aspects yes, but it's down to Larian modifying D&D 5e to their design ideology, not to them reusing D:OS2 systems.
Sure, D:OS2 and BG3 are very similar in many aspects - both in terms of character archetypes, plot points, and overarching design ideals, but let's keep criticisms based in reality. It's not clone nor a reskin - those words have a meaning and that meaning doesn't apply to BG3 without some really heavy overexaduration. Is it reimagening of D:OS2 in a D&D IP? Perhaps, but we will need to see more to judge that.
