I have nostalgia for BG1 and BG2 from when they originally released, but also did a playthrough of both games, plus Throne of Bhaal, in the past month. After finishing a playthrough of BG3, how does it compare? I will say at the outset that BG3 is a fairly good and meaty game, and is worth checking out if just to see what a AAA-budgeted CRPG can be. Full VA is great. My own playthrough was approx. 120 hours, and there is reactivity I want to explore further on future playthroughs. BG3 feels like a game in the same genre, but not much like a BG game. There are a handful of references to the earlier games, but the presentation feels nothing like BG1 and 2. While the default tone of the original games is "dark", the tone of BG3 is "whimsical". Two caveats: in Act 3 (of 3) of the game, without spoilers I will say the story started to feel like it belonged in the same universe. There is also an "origin" at character creation that will probably be a stronger tie that I have not experienced yet. The writing is mixed. Companions feel more fleshed out, but there are fewer of them and, without spoilers, the thrust of most of their stories felt very samey. For big-picture story, it feels like they wanted to make a blockbuster movie, complete with sometimes eye-rolling dialogue. Of the three, I'd probably rate BG2's story as best, though BG3 felt less railroaded. Gameplay-wise, it is very different. Turn-Based instead of RTwP, party of 4 instead of 6, 3D environments with elevation, even the classic party member green circles are white! For some these are welcome changes or unimportant differences; otherwise, the Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder CRPGs are better spiritual successors. User experience is something I would say the original games actually did better at the time of this review. Changing party composition is a pain, inventory management is a pain, even the camera controls and maps are awkward in some environments, largely thanks to the environments being 3D.
