Animations or other aesthetics? Placeholders until we get closer to final release. If they're still around, ask myself if it really is worth getting upset over it.
Fair enough, but for me (and perhaps others) the aesthetics do matter. And I'm not at all convinced these are placeholders. To be clear, I repeat here what I've said again and again elsewhere, that when I say this game looks too much like D:OS, I do NOT mean the setting or the characters or the story or the rules and mechanics. Yes very obviously these things are different. I literally mean how the game *looks*, as in how it visually looks on my display, and even here NOT in terms of better graphics fidelity (which I love) but rather the style of the various art assets (and no this has nothing to do with the engine), for example how the trees and shrubs and grass and rocks and floors and walls and buildings and so on look. These things have an unmistakable D:OS "look" to them, and for me personally, that's something I strongly dislike.
I get what you're saying. It's a common complaint over on the Steam forums, where I'm an active member in the discussions there.
I personally just am not that invested in the aesthetics of a game that's a sequel to a 20 year old, hand-drawn, 2-D, 8-bit computer game that was based on AD&D 2E.
But from this I would have to say you're again missing my point. I'm not saying any of this in the context of those old BG games. I would be saying this even if this game were a new IP game and not BG3. In other words: Saying BG3 looks too much like the D:OS games. NOT saying BG3 doesn't look enough like BG1&2.
So, nothing to do with the old BG games. I wouldn't want ANY new non-D:OS game being made by Larian to look like the D:OS games.
