Well, the rules have changed, for once. BG3 uses 5e. Second, the UI of the first games is old and outdated. BG2 is my favorite game of all time, but that UI is old. BG2 is a 20 years old game, and it shows. I'm not saying the BG3 UI is perfect, far from it. Of course there is room for improvement. And I do hope Larian will indeed improve. Actually, I'm counting on it. Actually, that one is not that different. Why is it different? Because it is not red text on black background? That's an improvement. The old font and colors would make my eyes bleed. Yes, classes are lacking. More will come. This is Early Access. They said there will be more. So wait for it. However, don't expect to see the same classes as in the first two games. As I said, this game uses a different set of rules.

You cannot import your character in BG3 because the Bhaalspawn saga has ended. They said that much. That is a closed chapter. We also know BG3 happens 100 years later. We may still see some familiar faces (elves and dwarves have long lives), but I would not count on it. Oh, I saw Volo in a trailer, so maybe this will bring a smile to your face, as it brought on mine. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. And if you want to know, this is not the first time Larian went to Wizards of the Coast to license Baldur's Gate III. First time they got rejected. So if this time Wizards gave their approval, I think we're in store for some epic adventure. It's just that the game is not yet ready. Expect to see improvements. It will stay in Early Access for at least one year. Beamdog's new content wasn't that great from what I heard. Did you play Siege of Dragonspear? I did not. But considering the stuff I've read and heard about it, I'm actually glad BG3 landed with Larian. I know where you're coming from, but this is not the game only for us old fans. It's supposed to be successful, not niche. There are many reasons why we love BG saga. UI is not the only one. Though I do hope Larian will improve their game. I have my share of complaints about the HUD and UI and I hope they will improve it. I'm playing it. It is a rather nice change. It has a lot of things to praise. Didn't get very far in the game, I'm taking my time with it. I think it's worthy of the title so far. But I played too little to tell. We'll see.

Another good reason for not being able to import characters from BG2 is because then PCs in BG3 would start at around level 30! That would be ridiculous for a new D&D campaign and make it completely inaccessible to newer players. Also, the fact that BG2 characters were developed in a completely different ruleset. How would you convert a 2nd ed character to 5th ed? What feats would they have chosen? What about the classes that have been dropped/added. Come on (OP), don't be silly.

we salute you

yeah I got that - just thought to do away with the sillier ones

These are pretty much my impressions as well.
As for the engine - technically it seems to be well-optimized (imagine the same sort of world in Unity and how much a more powerful rig it would require to run as smoothly). But as 99% games since roughly the end noughties it just doesn't leverage its power in almost no way. It could be 2d tiled engine for what's it worth - if not for the (requirement of) visuals. Design is king.

I've also read opinions and the consensus seems to be that DOS2 is 'better'. Better how in what and how much tho? I for one skeptical they've fixed the overreaching problems, some of which you've pinpointed...
Shunning Linux is really disappointing, but after completing DOS1 I wasn't sure I'd take on DOS2. The lack of Linux support kinda made the decision *a tad* easier tho)

The Temple of Elemental Evil? )) Alas, doesn't seem to have so much work put into chars and script and what not as it seems. Not by a long stretch I'll admit. That one was a battle oriented one after all... Kinda more of IWD1/2 league (and set not in Forgotten Realms). But it still getting fan-made modules and stuff like some NWN yay! No Linux for this one either sadly, though there is re-implementation (in Python O_o)

Guess they're not full-on Disney but still cartoonish enough to be out of place. And since pretty much the whole game relies on such chars...
There are already opinions it hasn't been fixed - https://www.gog.com/forum/baldurs_gate_series/baldurs_dos_iii_gate_3/post7

I think the puzzles and too much of an in-your-face elemental obstacles (manipulation would assume that you can use it in your favor, but really most of the time all those barrels of oil/water/slime and traps and puddles just get in your way, sometimes unreasonably annoyingly so) should have been scaled down for DOS1 to begin with!

if it gets licensed to Larian I'm starting a riot)) I'd rather not see another planescape and/or torment branded game)

yeah there's still time, tbh at this time I'm rather impartial since it doesn't support Linux anyway and I can choose a native/or and oldie in wine to play. Pity IWD2 still not completable in GEMRB (though truth to be told playing without the enhancements of the, well, EEs is VERY rough these days).
we'll see I guess. But it seems they're already kinda 'destined for success' as it is.
one thing is sadly already set I'm afraid - it's not sufficiently it's own personality to not cause all those comparisons and debates... well if your expectation is unreasonable then it's just... your problem then. How would you suggest importing 2e char/party into a 5e one? Even IWD2 hasn't got the option to import from IWD1
and anyway why would you want it so much? I know that through the history of CRPG games importing the party was something of a coveted 'leet' option, but importing say from BG1 into BG2 already wasn't making much sense aside from the fact itself that you could do it. And only for you own char at that.

Color-coding loot for rarity is pretty much an industry-standard practice now.

Even D&D Beyond does this (Green for Uncommon, Blue for Rare, Purple for Very Rare, Orange for Legendary).

I would suggest not using the 5th ruleset in this case then. The main point of exporting your characters has been that you can boost your stat points with the tomes from BG1 to BG2 to have your character stronger than you can generate from scratch. It will be impossible to get those stats from scratch if you start BG2 without playing BG1 first. Then in BG2 you get even additional stat boost in the end of the game (and Lum of the mad) which can make you have 20+ in all stats almost.
Then in Throne of Bhaal, you can actually enjoy all your stats that you've gathered through hard work in the whole game series.
To actually bring these stats to BG3 would have been awesome (as a little present for playing through the whole game series before starting BG3).

Yes, starting on Level 30+ would have been quite odd, but the levels are just within the specific game context. As long as you could have kept the stat points and all the spells and feats, it would have been quite fair for the long-run player.
Of course the Bhaal saga has ended, but there could have been a way of putting the Bhaal spawn "spirit" to a new persons body 100 years later, to have those extra additional stat points and stuff. Just to keep things a little bit connected.

I don't care what type of players BG3 is supposed to be for. Old fans or new kids. No matter what, the total point should be to continue the saga that everyone loves.

And btw, yes I played Siege of Dragonspear, it was awesome (apart from some political stuff, but it did not disturb me that much). If people would not have been so whiny about SoD, then Beamdog could have got the right to create this game. Larian could have used the same engine as Pillars of Eternity? It would have been much better. It's a modern and beautiful engine and it sticks to the Infinity engine mechanisms quite a bit.
But yeah, now it's too late to change the engine. My whole point with creating this thread is that I want to be a part of "improving" this game before it's too late. It's still early access phase which means a lot of stuff will be changed.
If the developers will look at this thread along with the others, maybe they can just steal some of the ideas we have for the real release. Like changing the hud, and hopefully try to do something about character import in some kind of way, between the different rulesets.

I will for sure buy this game anyways, and I want to contribute to the game with some critisism so that stuff can be changed before I buy it.

>I would suggest not using the 5th ruleset in this case then.

eh??

>The main point of exporting your characters

1) character
2) the main point in RPGs is consistency of playing with your beloved party and in the best case scenario story somewhat altered accordingly

Thus in the case of BG1 -> BG2 it wasn't so much of a MAIN POINT it was just what importing actually achieves for you. And as I said IT'S NOT MUCH. The bare minimum. So why would you cling to it citing it as an example of a feature gone, is beyond me.

I'm all for the game being a BG rather than (at least in a good measure) a Divinity but your specific demands are just not making much sense. 2e rules are gone from CRPGs for like 18 years, 3+ rules are very different (I'm not a DnD expert but from what I've read I've gathered that 3-5 are more similar between themselves than say 2e and 3e) so no continuity with regard to char development could have been upheld.
And the baalspawn plot vehicle is gone AFAIU for better or for worse. So no sense plot-wise either (and as I continually stress here, there wasn't to begin with)

Perhaps a good way to do that might be to actually buy and play the Early Access then? As opposed to condemning the game prematurely, based on opinions that seem to be coming entirely from hearsay and second-hand information. Do you think Larian are going to be the slightest bit interested in your feedback, if you haven't even tried the game? I wouldn't.

I am also very curious about how DOS2 is better than 1. DOS2 has a lot of rave reviews and I've heard a lot about it being 'better', but with very few specifics. I might make a post in the Divinity forum about it, as I am very curious as to whether they have improved on any of the things I didn't like.

Yes, it is a shame to see Larian backpedaling on Linux support. I can only hope they will release BG3 on Linux at some point, seeing as it is apparently using Vulkan.

I loved the combat in ToEE. It was playing that game that made me realize how much more sense turn-based combat makes than RTwP. Although, I think Larian's engine takes things a step further. For example, the interactivity with the environment is on a similar level to Elder Scrolls or Ultima VII, and they have quite a nice crafting system in there too. Plus, it is fully 3D and looks gorgeous. It is truly a great engine :-)

Putting aside PS:Torment for a moment (which is one of my favorite CRPGs), I really like the Planescape setting in general and would love to see it used for another CRPG. I think it would be really nice to see another game in the Planescape setting that is just its own original thing and not trying to recreate 'Torment'.

Well, yeah. I introduced this thread with "my opinions may not be of a huge matter since I have not played the games". But there is also a marketing part. To make people buy a game, that is more important than the game itself. It does not matter how good a game is, if you fail on the marketing part, then you're smoked. For me, they have failed on the marketing since I want a Baldur's Gate game, and not a Divinity game, and I would never buy this game if it was not entitled Baldur's Gate. So I will buy it anyways, but not until the real release. I will probably enjoy it a lot no matter what.

Well, we'll see where it will end up. As someone mentioned, if this game is a success, they will probably end up with creating 5 additional games. And if people are whiny, there may not be more games. So I will probably rate it 5/5 no matter what. I'm still very excited on this game, but I have all rights to give feedback on the gameplay videos I've seen.

You have to ask yourself a question: would Wizards of the Coast license a new game that uses an obsolete set of rules?

If it's a continuation of a game released in 1998, then maybe.

I'd really like that, because I didn't manage to understand yet how everything works in 5e. I'm still struggling. I'll understand it all eventually, but it will take me more time to do so. And time is... well, something that I don't have in great supply. I can barely find the time to play 1-2 hours each day. 2nd ed, on the other hand, I knew them by heart back in the day. The last rules I played with were the 3.5 set of rules. That one I liked a lot. 5e is different though. But I'm aware Wizards of the Coast will never release a game with a set of rules from 20 years ago. BG3 may help with the sales of 5e books, while I don't think they're still selling 2nd edition books. So, from a marketing perspective, no. I don't see that happening.

All theyre doing is use the same game engine...theyre completely different games.

Larian almost certainly did not have any choice in that. Using the current ruleset was very likely to be a requirement imposed by WOTC, without whose permission, the game could not be made at all. Those "spells and feats" are part of being X or Y level. The Forgotten Realms is about far more than just ONE story.

As one story ends, two more begin.

That's what D&D is about.

A point you clearly just Do. Not. Get.

SMH
The answer to that question is always "no".

They've licensed old TTRPG modules to be updated to 5E; they've updated old settings to 5E themselves.

They would not want a modern game to be built, using 2E rules, while they themselves try to sell 5E books to people.

It's funny - 5e is a really nice streamlined ruleset, whereas 2e is, frankly, a confusing mess (I know a lot of 2e players think of it fondly, but lets be honest - That whole negative AC and THAC0 is just really weird and counter-intuitive)

However, that made it translate into a CRPG really well, as all the complexity was removed and handled by the computer!

I do wonder if 5e is having the opposite problem - I find the ruleset much looser and human-friendly, which makes implementing it in code a bit trickier.


I must admit tho', from what I've seen of BG3 so far I don't know why they called it BG3.

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Baldur's Gate series at all - They were mainly about the whole Bhaalspawn saga, whereas this is off on its own thing thing. I don't think it even touches on anything from BG1 or 2?

They should have just called it Tales of Baldur's Gate - Invasion of the Illithid or something like that rather than Baldur's Gate 3. Heck, calling it Planescape - Invasion of the Illithid would have been more appropriate, and then we could have and excuse for more Planes-spanning hijinks, maybe even visiting the Astral and Limbo planes and seeing more Githyanki and Githzerai culture! (As someone who was really into the Planescape stuff, and who's characters all originate from an artificial planetoid in Limbo, I'm all in for any Planescape/Planes stuff! :D)

The game does look like it plays completely different too; To be expected to a certain extent, given it's a completely different ruleset and engine, but it does look like it plays a LOT more like DOS2 to the point where dirty mechanic-abusing cheeses that worked in DOS2 look like they'd work in BG3 as well!