You and several others start out as captives on a ship, which is suddenly intercepted by powerful beings that cause the ship to crash after passing through multiple planes of existence. You are rescued from death by a magical being and wake up on a beach, where you meet other people who survived the wreck and who you can recruit into your party. You must also reckon with the newfound fact that you (and your fellow shipmates and survivors) have something inside you that you don’t understand and which may grant you mysterious powers…
I just described the opening sequence to both DOS2 and BG3. Both games start you out at low-level but have bombastic, explosive openings that set the tone right away. Meanwhile, the original BG series starts off quietly and shrouded in mystery.
This is one of many ways why BG3 feels much closer to Larian’s previous games, especially DOS2, than the original BG games. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game - but it does make it a poor sequel in my eyes.
Here are some other reasons:
Combat: I don't want to repeat the huge megathread on RTwP vs. turn-based combat and I am not saying which is "better" than the other. But it's undeniable this choice has far-reaching consequences such as the pacing and strategy of each individual combat, handling AI aggro, and the number of trash mobs, enemies, and overall fights in the game. BG1/2 was an early pioneer RTwP, which was critically acclaimed at the time and is one of the reasons why BG is credited with revitalizing the computer RPG genre, so not continuing the iconic RTwP system certainly makes this less of a BG-feeling game.
Approach to adapting D&D: Larian seemed to explicitly try to replicate the tabletop with BG3, by keeping the combat turn-based but also going so far as to literally show animations of dice rolls on screen when you make a check like it's a pen-and-paper session. In numerous interviews, they spoke about the original BG games interchangeably with being a D&D video game adaption. If you ask me they always missed that (a) BG1/2 was never about replicating the tabeltop experience and (b) the D&D ruleset was never what defined the original BG games and made them so memorable in the first place.
Map Design: DOS2 and BG3 use what’s known as a “theme park” map design - maps that contain many villages/forests/points of interest tightly packed so even “distant” locations are right next to each other. The original BG approach has always been to have individual maps for each place, preserving adventure scale and immersion over gameplay convenience. This was more streamlined in BG2 compared to the expansive forests and mostly empty maps of BG1, but the avoidance of a dense theme park map still stands.
Day/Night Cycle: BG1 and BG2 had a day/night cycle more than 20 years ago yet it is completely absent from BG3 (and DOS2). This didn't just effect immersion in terms of the passing of time, but it also affected some NPC schedules/merchant availability/quests.
Elemental Surfaces and Barrels: A pretty infamous element of DOS2 and a Larian invention that was brought over to BG3. To be fair, player complaints in EA resuled in these being significantly toned down, but this is still a unique element of DOS2 that no other games have except for BG3.
UI: The exact same font from DOS2 is in BG3. DOS2 and BG3 have very clean UI, while BG1/2 UI was specifically made to look rough, like you were using an adventurer’s journal with worn parchment and hand-drawn images.
Companions: A hallmark of BG2 was the enormous diversity (and quality) of recruitable companions. There were 16 possible companions and you could have up to 6 people in your party, resulting in a huge number of possible party combinations. Enormous amounts of banter and interactions that depended on specific party comps made them feel real, and even 20 years later I’m still hearing banter I have never heard before. DOS2 and BG3 have far fewer possible companions (5 and 10, respectively, even fewer when you consider that recruiting some companions completely lock you from others), significantly less intra-party banter, and only allow a 4-person party, which reduces party diversity compared to BG1/2.
Origin Characters: The concept of “origin characters”, where your protagonist can be a character that is otherwise recruitable in another playthrough (e.g. Astarion, Lae'zel, Gale, etc), is a Larian exclusive that they first introduced in DOS2. Aside from only further adding to the DOS2 feel, I don’t think that concept of origin characters are a good fit for a Baldur’s Gate game. BG1/2 is a focused story of a specific character from Candlekeep, Gorion’s ward and the Bhaalspawn destined to determine the fate of Bhaal’s essence. Even if BG3 is about someone new, Origin characters make the game feel less like a specific person’s story.
Lore and BG1/2 story continuation: This is partially on WOTC for retconning canon but also on Larian for adopting that canon (they ignore canon in some places, such as the fate of Jaheira, so clearly they weren't totally beholden to it). Plot points established in Throne of Bhaal are directly contradicted in BG3, and the treatment of Viconia and Sarevok was really disappointing.
So what would have made this game feel more like a BG sequel to me? UI that evoked the originals, using the weathered stone palette and hand-drawn parchment instead of the very clean style. Specific, immersive maps with towns that feel large and lived in and the passage of the time that feels realistic. The RTwP style of combat (or at least the option for it). No origin characters, in favour of many more recruitable companions. More respect for the lore established by Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, especially in the treatment of returning characters.
