Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Does BG3 give the old "BG feeling" ?

Hello,

I haven't played Early Access, I have only seen content on youtube so far, so I can't really say much about the game.

Back in the day I loved BG1 and BG2, it made me find my love for RPG's and I played all the classics (Neverwinter Nights, Ice Wind Dale, etc.).

So far what I have seen from videos everything gives me DOS vibes, so I'm not sure if I should actually buy the game. I played DOS 1 and 2 but I didn't finish them. I thought the games were alright but they didn't even come close to the feeling I have when I play BG. They didn't suck me in and always lost interest after a while. Also in BG3 everything looks so bright and colorful and the city looks more like its out of a pirates of the caribbean movie to me than a fantasy medival setting that is a bit more dark and messy. Maybe some of you get what I mean.

So my question basically just is: Have you played BG1 and 2 and if so, do you like BG3? Is it more like DOS or more like BG?

Thank you

BG3 is very much built on Larian’s sensibilities and design choices from DOS1 and 2. It’s a lot more polished and evolved, but it is clearly just as much a successor to those games as it is to BG. I really enjoyed DOS2 especially, but based on my experience with EA I’d say easily say BG3 is a much better game.

I’d say just wait on reviews and maybe buy it after launch on Steam where you at least have a couple of hours to refund it if it isn’t working for you.

Not to me it doesn't. It pretty much feels like I suspected it would; Baldur's Sin: Original Gate 3. If they had called it The Illithid Conspiracy: A Sword Coast Adventure, I wouldn't have blinked.

However, it definitely is fun and I think it's no less of a game than BG, SoD or BG2. Those are some of my fav RPGs and so is D:OS2. I'm glad to have another CRPG on the Sword Coast and it does not suffer from the Divinity engine.

Not in the slightest, no. That said, BG3 is also NOT DOS3. I couldn't get past the first act of DOS2, but I've enjoyed my time with BG3 for the most part.

Well. It's certainly different.

Foremost there is the fact that this is a big-budget AAA title, highly cinematic with fancy graphics. It's also more of a mainstream game, where the old ones were more of a niche game.
But all that aside. The feel.

Hmm. It's more akin BG2 than BG1 Yes, there is a lot of exploration, but it's also all very impressive and well over the top from the get-go. In BG1, you had this wide, open world with farms and villages and stretching woodlands... Here everything is condensed with something hyper-fantastical happening behind every corner. There is no sense of 'we're just walking through the woods', you're very actively adventuring constantly. It's very.. condensed.

There is also how the older titles tackled levels; where you start out in Candlekeep - as a level one character you can barely manage a wolf. You scale up, becoming more powerful than the other creatures that inhabit the world; as these levels meant something in regards to it.
In BG3 in the INTRO CINEMATIC, your level one character is abducted by Mind Flayers, who are attacked by Githyanki on Dragons, so they bash through the planes whilst getting Dragon fire blasted upon them, only to end up in the Middle of the Blood War being waged in the Nine Hells. Teh ship is boarded by Devils... and then it's time for the Tutorial section.

Yeah, no... There is no Candlekeep, here. Nothing is held back and your levels matter not in terms of what it should represent. Everything is epic. All of your companions, who could be playable characters too, have an added epic backstory to them; one even outright dated a God, or so he says.


But, it;s beautiful, gorgeous scenery, high production values, highly reactive - there's segments that play out entirely different as you pick a different class, whole maps that change according. It's really nice.

But it feels... very different.

No. It feels like Dragon Age: Origins with the gameplay of DOS II. Which I like.

This is very, very much down to taste and priorities. I played and loved BG1 & 2 when they were first released, and have played them frequently since. I struggled through D:OS on my third attempt and stalled on my first attempt at D:OS2 at the beginning of Act 2, because while I saw much I liked in both games, they somehow didn't grab me. And I love BG3 and think it might end up being my favourite ever game. Knocking either Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect (depending what day you ask me) off the top spot, in case that helps calibrate preferences.

In terms of elements of its look and feel, the fact this is made by the same studio as D:OS and D:OS2 is very obvious, though there's a massive step change in things like animation and writing complexity. And the D:OS heritage of elements of the gameplay is also pretty clear, though personally I think the differences from BG1/2 are as much to do with the move to a new version of D&D as to D:OS. And while I love the original BG games, I'm not a huge fan of their combat, and find Larian's turn-based take much more compelling.

It's also complicated by the fact that D:OS and D:OS2 themselves owed a debt to BG1/BG2.

But while I know many people don't see the direct line to BG1/2 in the new game, I do. I particularly see the links to BG1, which despite all the improvements BG2 included, is still the original game I think I have most affection for. That's partly to do with setting, of course, but also elements of the structure and the way we uncover the plot and slowly make our way to Baldur's Gate. And the fact it doesn't take itself too seriously, but you can still play it absolutely straight and have a ripping adventure. Or be silly and have a blast. There are tons of memorable characters and funny lines, as well as lots of moving little stories you can get a glimpse of.

Plus BG3 has a really interesting dynamic that I personally have only really come across in BG1 before (and BG2 to some extent, though I think it's a bit lost by that point) in the sense that it in some ways feels like a Dungeons & Dragons playing simulator rather than (just) a roleplaying game set in a fantasy world. I struggle to explain this, but it's almost as though we aren't playing (or aren't just playing) the fantasy character that we create, but our perspective becomes that of someone playing Dungeons & Dragons with a group of friends with the game coming to life Jumanji-like in front of us. This creates an odd sort of distance between the world and the player that I think some players do find hurts immersion, but I find incredibly interesting and engaging. Though if that doesn't appeal or make any sense, then I'd say the effect is subtle so don't let that put you off!

Which is all a long way of saying that whether you see BG3 as a successor to BG1/BG2 will depend on what you liked about them. Fortunately for me, Larian have picked up on elements that I most appreciated, in some cases quite unconsciously, and created a game that takes those to the next level. Others, as I'm sure you'll find out from other replies in this thread, don't feel the same.

I think that describes it pretty well. It's definitely closer to DA:O than to BG 1 & 2. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing

I still think what I thought whenever the game first came out, I know I'm going to enjoy the game but it doesn't feel like BG, unless the story somehow makes me feel something I've yet to feel that's how it is.

The game feels a lot like DOS3 with a forgotten realms background (even most of the music feels straight out of DOS2, I know the composer is the same but that doesn't mean the music has to be the same). The only games that feels to me like the old BG's is the pathfinder games (pillars of eternity didn't do it either, even if I also enjoyed it)

You are kinda asking a question that is impossible to answer and here is why:

Your feelings are mixed in with feelings of Nostalgia for a game that was an incredible adventure for the time. and made you feel a certain way not just because it was incredible, but because you were in the morning of your life and everything seemed possible then. Those feelings are of course valid but they are biased as well, and possibly misleading.

I also played Bg1 and 2 when it came out, and going back to it I just can't get through it because the systems are so old, inefficient and dated compared to modern games. If Larian recreated those system only a handful of old fogies would buy it.

In 20 years - if Larian is gone and not doing D&D anymore - another company will face the same scrutiny if they try to make BG4 - because a whole new generation of gamers are about to have their world rocked by this version of BG - and that have not played the originals and they will take that nostalgia into the future.

For the record, I fucking LOVE BG3. It doesn't feel like the old games, it feels WAY better. Like miles and miles improved.

First, the games are played on completely different engines, so they dont look or play the same. There decades apart, Second the originals allowed for Real time combat and pause.

Baldur's gate three is on the Divinity engine so its going to look and feel a lot like that game series, and Its turn based.

I've racked up hundreds of hr's since day one of EA

I was here on these forums expressing my distaste with turn based, I have sense come around and I truly enjoy my experience with this game and NO ONE is more excited to play the full release.

I've been thinking about making a topic for this, but I am just going to put it here:
BG3 is not a game built on the experiences of BG1+2. It uses the setting of BG1 and the stories of BG1+2 as its setting. It uses a cinematic style and companion dialogue style from Dragon Age: Origins. It uses a combat and control scheme, and indeed borrows most of its "kinetic" gameplay from DOS2, which itself was an evolution from DOS1, which itself was a 3D reimagining of isometric gameplay from old CRPGs.

At its core, BG3 seems to be a tabletop simulator. Perhaps not with 5e rules on a 1:1 basis, but a tabletop simulator nevertheless. Outside of its turn-based combat and general exploration, the most important, attention-grabbing features of the game are centered around dialogue choices and dice rolls. Previous RPGs did not give you a visual D20 to roll every 30 minutes of gameplay, flashing modifiers to show how you might reach that minimum score. The very way the story progresses is tied to your dice rolls, and even if you fail, the story progresses in a new way. Even the narrator serves as a DM as opposed to the narrator of a story or a particular character.

What gives it away the most is the idea of the "spider web" ending that recently emerged in an article. There is one "type" of ending, but 17,000 different ways to get there. They discuss how many RPGs give you a small handful of branching paths that are set once you make a certain decision, and there's no going back. I would argue that most RPG and CRPG experiences actually "railroad" the player this way. You are given very specific quests, and at best, you can either succeed or fail. Maybe some factions have competing quests, and you have to choose one. But once you are on a path, you must stick with it, as one can see in every classic CRPG, FNV, TES, or Bioware Games. Maybe you can change the order of the quests, maybe you can choose one faction over another, maybe you can choose one alignments path over another, but ultimately there is one particular direction the game is going to go.

What Larian seems to be pursuing here is the "spider web" of the DM interacting with a specific module. The players can do many things, even derail the DM's initial plans, but eventually the DM accounts for these decisions and guides the players back to the module. They way the players get back to the main objective of the module can involve a multitude of different permutations, bounded only by imagination (the immersive sim component) and rules-contained chance (the rolling component).

What makes other games enjoyable has been the quality of the very specific stories created for the player. Here, the goal is to provide the player with respect for every way they might stray from the initial story, something only accomplished by tabletop roleplaying, or immersive sim-style RPGs.

And frankly, ugh I cant stomach the infinity engine games anymore, Im looking forward to plugging my brain in and evolving to the next generation of games where I enter a dream state of gaming. Total recall type of shit. Im 53 yrs there still may be time for me haha

Infinity Engine is awesome.

Anyways, BG3 is basically DOS3 in dnd light clothing. I enjoyed the DOS games so I expect I'll enjoy BG3. The tie in to dnd is a bonus. But, contary to what Larian claimed, BG3 is not 95% compliant to dnd. L0L

It sure doesn't play like older BG games, but there is a big similarity. They are both the pinnacle of what CRPG are in their respective period.

No evidence yet BG3 is that. We shall see.

But having that in common doesn't mean BG3 feels like a sequel, even if BG3 is labeled as the best crpg of the last 20 years that doesn't automatically makes the game a ''good sequel'' you know what I mean? The thing is, this game owns a huge part of it's success to the fact that BG1 and 2 exist and this is marketed as a sequel, if this were DOS3 in name and soul the game wouldn't be as big and famous as it is now or will be in the future.

So the primeval debate has always been: ''Is it BG3 a real BG or just marketing'' and I think the answer is something in between.

There are significant differences. So far there isn't that experience of exploring a large world you have in BG1. There also isn't that sense of being isolated in a far-away, dangerous environment you had in BG2's chapter 5. Everything is really close together and reachable, which makes the Underdark feel like your friendly neighborhood cave, plus monsters. There's also no random combat. I like that, but it's mainly not there because there is no space for it, which I like less. Of course this is only the first chapter, but I have the impression this might not change signficantly in the full game.

On the other hand, the location design is outstanding. A lot of verticality makes locations feel more real, and there are so many details and countless interesting things to explore. You'll find more interesting things here in one map area than on any five full maps in BG1. We'll see how that holds up in city maps versus BG2's, but I believe it will. I can't wait to visit Baldur's Gate realized with this type of location design. And from the published material, it does seem like we'll recognize the city layout from BG1.

Similarities to DOS2 have been pointed out, but IMO they are actually are not that significant. You'll notice the design principles of the locations, and of course there is the turn-based combat and a combat system where you can use the environment to good effect. There are origin characters but they're very different from DOS2's origin characters. Overall BG3 feels very different from DOS2, even in combat. So far I haven't had a fight where I couldn't move without stepping into some weird shit. That was rather standard in DOS2. The combat abilities are also D&D and it makes a difference.

With regard to the story, well......there's no such thing as a slow start, as mentioned above. I'm not sure if I like it that way, but it does work to draw you into the world. And the story premise.... is just ingenious in several ways.

So...BG3 feels all in all like a different game of the same general type - a party based RPG where you look on your characters from somewhere above, and your character in the world feels different, but you definitely feel you're in the same world and I think you will recognize the city if you played BG1. In that sense. BG3 seems like a valid successor.

Edit:
One really annoying thing, from my perspective, is the visually intrusive dice rolls. I hope there'll be an option to make them less intrusive. The old games also used dice rolls, but you had to look into the log to see them. I like that much better than BG3's system.

I'm with you, OP. I find BG3 has far too much in common with the D:OS games, which I thoroughly disliked, and not nearly enough in common with the original BG games, which I passionately love.

I don't get the same sense of adventuring and excitement especially when exploring wilderness areas. In BG1 wilderness the world feels open and vast and the slower "travel music" is wonderful. There's a great dynamic of dense areas and sparse areas just like in real world cities <> wilderness.

BG3 areas all feel too dense, scripted and planned. Larian makes games so dense with awesome they can't breathe if that makes sense. That's a big part of BG1 I miss. The world feeling so vast you can get lost in it, without being empty and boring like open world games.

Like the OP I don't get sucked in BG3 the same way I did with BG1&2. BG3 is too gamey to be as immersive, and the theme park areas are one big part of that. Larian need to learn to make worlds that feel real.