Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong

#29 - It is neither balance intended nor a limitation of the engine (again, Glut Army). So it is a conscious choice.

#35 - You're doing it again. I did not say whether it was or was not an issue/bad thing, but it is a factor. DoS was well known for having been set in the British Isles and nowhere else. BG series had an abundance of different accents. BG 3 is also set in the British Isle it seems, so on the list it goes. Reusing the exact same voice for Malady (voice, not voice actress. By all means go look at how many Voice Actors the BG series used and who multiple actors provided extremely different voices)

#46 - Except then it would be listed as being balanced for 4 players. It is not. It is 3-5, or 4-5. And again, is DoS well known for having 4 person parties? Yes. Is BG well known for having 4 person parties? No. Is it discussed a lot? Literally one of the longest ongoing discussions, so yes. Ergo, it goes on the list as a DoS factor that contributes its part to the 'feeling' of DoS rather than BG. Stop confusing this thread as the place where people are discussing whether 4 person parties are good or bad, but rather whether that is a factor in why the game feels like BG or DoS.

#58 - Yup, they sure do. They find out that information organically, sometimes even by just looking at the miniature or the DM's description of the target. Which is exactly what happened in the BG series. It is not what happened in the DoS series. This is not the place to discuss improving it or not, but the fact is DoS is well known for the Examine mechanic, BG is not well known for that, and it is something that has been discussed here and on Discord (with growing occurrence). So on the list it goes.

#61 - No need, because I know the rules better than you think you do. PHB pg 191. Relevant text under the heading of "Moving Around Other Creatures" --- "You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you. Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space."

You could not move through an ally at all in DoS, you could move through an allies space in BG. Ergo, on the list.

#66 You are wrong that you cannot see enemies on the map without Line of Sight. It does work like that occasionally, typically via walls and doors, but absolutely not when on the overworld map. But Fog of War references not being able to see anything, enemies, terrain, and the minimap included, until you have Line of Sight. Solasta is a great example of this, but so is the BG series. You do not get the map revealed until you actually go explore it.

#70 Laughably wrong, again. You didn't play the game, or you played a heavily modified version of the game. BG AI had a host of prioritizations, distance to target being one of them. Some enemies would run past your frontline to get to the squishies, generally only if it was appropriate for that enemy type. Go ahead, go test it out. Load up BG 2 and demonstrate that the AI consistently targets the creature with the lowest (highest) AC value. I know it won't, because I did.

Is DoS known for AI that has perfect knowledge and targets your 'lowest' armor stat character, regardless of distance to target or other factors. BG AI is not known for doing this (feel free to go ask the coders that dived into the AI coding for the EE). Ergo on the list. If you have any sort of proof that this is incorrect in either respect, happy to remove.

#17 - That is my description. I cannot think of a single fight in BG 3 where the enemies did not do at least one of the following: use consumables, use bombs/thrown attacks, magical spells, special abilities (ones not from their 5e states). It is entirely possible that I have missed that particular fight or did not remember one where none of the above happened. Same process for DoS. Is DoS well known for this? Is BG series known for this? On the list.

#10 - I gave this one quite a bit of thought, but ultimately decided to keep it included on the list for the amount of times it has been brought up in discussions. Ignoring the amount of other people that 'feel' the same on this factor cannot be ignored. I also disagree with your broader inclusion of the BG 2 start elements, in addition to the fact that you completely ignored how BG 1 intro had absolutely none of those elements. You did make me think how DoS 1 doesn't necessarily have 10/10 factors, but it still had enough (beach after ship wreck being the most obvious).

#53 - You are again seeing what you want to see (insults) rather than what was actually written. I genuinely did not know if you played the entirety of the BG 1 and BG 2 series, because it *is* well known for being able to form an entire 6 player character party. Is DoS well known for making you take NPCs as companions instead of player created characters? Yes. Is BG well known for that? No. Is it discussed frequently? Yes. On the list.

#56 - You openly admit you didn't review the evidence provided, so your response does not carry much value. I provided empirical evidence of the length of the in-game BG series lore books. I haven't been able to find a list of the BG 3 in-game lore books yet, but more than happy to review one if you can provide. At the moment, there is no question (in my own person opinion) about the difference in descriptive sizes. More than happy to change this one if provided contradictory evidence or sufficient confirmation that others disagree.

Please stop trying to say whether a factor is good or bad, you keep doing that.

#29. Are you Larian? Do you KNOW why its like that in the game? No? Hen dont assume to know the reasons behind their actions. It beeing a leftover from their engine or a balance issue is the most likely anwser to me.

#35 im doing...what? Giving my opinion? Now im confused, why are you upset over that?

#46: Ah yes RPG games are WELL KNOWN for the parties size in the game.... (sarcasm incase anyone is wondering) also im not confusing this as a place for discussion (even if that IS the purpose for these entire forums....) but rather am chiming in. Its not an attack and people are allowed to have different opibions as well. Im saying why I dont see it as such and if you dont agree with me THATS FINE.

#58: you keep using the 'well known' line but ive never heard of a game beeing known for a mechanic to take a closer look at an enemies stats... It was an option, yes. But if you dont want to discuss what else they could do instead then you dont have to I suppose.

#61: Ah good, you found the proper page. Take a look further down the page however: where it blatantly states that you cant move through the hobgoblin in a doorway. Note it does not mention 'a hostile hobgoblin'. It allows you to do what the title says 'move around them'. It allows you to move through the tile they are standing in but only if you could realisticly move past them. You CANNOT move through teammates. Or anyone else who is friednly for that matter. Also if you were close enough to an enemy it would still trigger an attack of opportunity.

Also about moving through teammates in bg. False. You cannot move through teammates AT ALL. Say your mage and rogue are held with a hold person spell you cannot move a fighter past them to get to the enemies. They only move to the side sometimes when a friendly 'pushes' them sort of out of the way, but they need their own movement to do that. You could also do that with neutral NPC's incidentily. If anything though it was a bit of glitchy movement. Im not sure if it was an intended feature.

#86: Sounds more like a glitch to me then. Considering seeing through walls should obviously not be a thing if you need line of sight to see things. Considering we can see through hidden wallss as well currently I think its just safe to mention that the camera and line of sight are abit finicky and buggy atm.

#70: Im abit sick and tired of people saying I did not play the game honestly. Specially when the things that I have posted already blatantly disprove your insult. Ofcourse the AI wont go out of its way to close his ranged fighter to your melee fighter to get a shot at that distant mage. Its not retarded! If he moves into range though even after he has already engaged he might switch target priority however. Which proves my point. That said its a 20 year old game so the AI isent as advantced of that of BG3 but it was defenitly there. Found yourself in a bandit ambush as a random encounter for example where you are SURROUNDED by bandits with bows you will find your squishes targetted ALOT. Again proves my point. Might even target him even though a fighter in plate is closer. Inmagine that! AI in such an old game!

And again the 'the game is very known for' line. Do you get royalties every time you say it? ;P Yeah the AI in DOS is obsessed with dogpiling the most poorly armoured fighters, but thats not the only thing it does and it defenitly isent the thing the game is 'known for'

#17. If you use that description then yes, there are no normal enemies. Enemies also used consumables in BG1 and 2 though. Althoug the only consumables that they used were really potions or special arrows if memory serves me well but by gods they used them.

#10. I did not broaden the terms for the BG2 comparison. If you dont believe me, play the early game again until you escape from Irenicus' dungeon. The opening scene has you in a cage, beeing tortured by Irenicus. Thats already 2 points. Things go south really quikly as Irenicus has to depart because his complex is beeing attacked allowing you to escape. You make your way through the exit of the dungeon and an explosion basicly rips a hole in the trade district. Irenicus then fights the cowled wizard but 'surrenders' if they also take Imoen kidnapping your half sister. Thats 5 points at least. You dont wake up on a beach and the prison wasent a ship. It doesent sink and you dont wake up on a beach. If you include the explosion not blowing up the PC thats 6 points as divine intervention but that might be taking the piss about laugh

And again, the whole 'you start captured and then escape' is a widely used trope to start a story. But I can see how people might draw compariisons to DOS.

#53: If people question whatever im beeing truthfull about what im saying while the points that im making about the game make it BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that I did then yes, I am bloody offended by that; because it feels very disenguine.

Playing Multiplayer and making a full PC team was a method to play, yes. Not everyone liked it though because you missed all inter party interaction the game had to offer and it defenitly wasent the default way to play the game. I would LOVE it if Larian included it at some point but im neither expecting nor want it to be for my 1st playthrough. It allowed for better (read: stronger) parties but you missed so much roleplaying it was genuinely a shame. I only did it after completing the game honestly but it was an interesting way to play the game defenitly.

#56: I said that bg did have longer books? Just not that I felt it warranted it to be a difference to mention why it makes you think of DOS. I dont see play a rpg and see books with short text and go 'ah yes. Short lore books. This reminds me of DOS'

I really dont get what you are getting at honestly. You compiled a lists of complaints (and yes, most of them are complaints) why people think the game is DOS3 rather then BG3 and then get mad when people point out this fact. If you dont want to offer Larian feedback what they can do to combat it im not sure what the purpose of the list is honestly?

Ho gosh....
Sry for my poor english as non-native one.

I rephrase it more correctly for you to understand (even if I'm pretty sure you don't really want to understand a point of view which is different from yours...)

- BG1 and 2 had 6 man parties
- DOS 1 and 2 had 4 man parties
- BG3 have 4 man parties
- so BG3 is closer in his design to DOS.
that's a fact.
This is not a COMPLAIN, this is not a FEELING, this is a... wait for it... FACT. So don't say something is not a fact when it is.

More, what you say about "feel" is irrelevant.
People can indeed think BG3 feels or doesn't feel like DOS2. But no one can say "4 man parties ? Its totally BG !". And this is why this point participate to explain why BG3 feels like DOS2.

Il try to take into consideration that you arent a native speaker. Im not myself but speak it plainly enough that its not really an issue for me.

And no, sorry its still an opinion and still not a fact. There goes ALOT more into game design then just party size. Just sharing a party size with a different game is not enough to make a game closer in design then another. Its a simularity that they have an not much beyond that. If you said 'both DOS and BG3 currenlty have 4 man parties' then sure. Thats a fact. Hold up il bring up the defenitions of the 2 so we are on the same page:

Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Il try to explain it with a example. I saw a movie a while back that I found HILARIOUS! So I pushed a buddy to go see it. And his opinion was a 'meh' at best. People have different opinions and while we watched the same movie he just dident find it all that great. He couldnt really pinpoint what it was, just that he dident like it.

Thats the same vibe that im getting from everyone who says its 'DOS 3'. I mean we all get that its done by the same company in the same engine that made DOS. But this fact aside people are just screaming 'this isent bg' and have no concise point that makes it such.

Saying "nah, feeling is personnal" is just a... poor way to denied the influence of game design. If we follow your reasoning it's impossible to make a game who feels like another since "you know it's feelings...".
Absurd. It's like if you said "people find Grave of the fireflies sad but it's not because of the work of his creator, it's just a feeling coming from nowhere". It's absurd.
A feeling didn't just pop-up out of nowhere in the minds of the people.
A feeling is induced by the design, the work the creators put in their creation.

So, definitely putting "4 man parties" in BG3 participate to the feeling of DoS cause it's a clear indicator, a clear difference, undisputable.
Saying otherwise is hypocrisy.

So again, the "4 man-parties" is a difference which participate to make BG3 feels like DoS.

Originally Posted by Demoulius
[quote]Just saying that it FEELS like DOS 3 rather then BG3 is something the developers cant do anything with. They cant bottle the baldurs gate 'feel'. Nor would increasing the party size to 6 man make it a bg game.

Who said that ? Who said "increasing the size to 6 will make it bg" ? Really, who ?
There is just a guy who listed all the difference who participate to make BG3 feels like DoS.
And you summarize his work by a "one difference won't make difference". Yeah obviously. This is why there is more than 50 differences.
It's like saying "one brush stroke wont make a flower". yeah, obivously... This is why painter put more than just "one brush stroke".

Except that 'feeling is personel' is very true and like I said above in an example makes it that people dont perceive things in the same way. Its not a point to do or not do something its just that developers need something more tangible to work with if you want it to feel less like the thing that it feels like. Some of the poitns were 'actionbar' and im wondering if that isent satire honestly. Every RPG has a taskbar? How does the taskbar make you think about DOS when you see it in BG3? (to name just 1 example)

Im not sure what you mean when I say 'one difference wont make difference'? I never said that? And yes you had a big list of differences.... I can also make a big list if I have mulitples that are basicly the same thing but just worded differently.

And who are saying that 6 man parties would make it bg? Aside from the people who are LITERALY pushing for Larian to do that..... What is the entire point of mentioning the party size if you dont want to see it changed? There wouldnt be a point behind it. So im assuming that people who mention it dont like 4 man parties and want to see it changed to 6 man parties. Not a big assumption to make if you ask me. If you are now going to go out and say that it isent something that you want to see changed then you are beeing incredibly disengenous.

I really try to deal with your stubborness but...
Originally Posted by Demoulius
[quote]Just saying that it FEELS like DOS 3 rather then BG3 is something the developers cant do anything with.

You're saying, the guys can't do a thing about.... their game design ?
It's an amazing argument. Larian are lucky to have you to defend them. I mean you litteraly said the guys can't... design.
I accept defeat.

Well nice thing about that, you dont have to. I personally dont think I am the stubborn one here but if you dont want to deal with me....you dont have to.

Im not saying that at all! Im saying that a developer needs clear feedback if you want them to change something. Just saying 'taskbar' (to stay with that example) doesent tell them ANYTHING. What about it? Is it the shape? is it to small? Is it to big? Is it the colours? Is it the location on the screen? Would you rather have round actions rather then square ones?

And before you say But were just making a list here!' yeah well these forums are the feedback and suggestions forums. Pardon me if I take the subjects in this place as such and not just some random list made for shits and giggles. We got off topic forums for that. And if you are offering them feedback, dont act suprised when other people chime in as well.