Oh yeah it's nowhere near like that, or even Divinity. It's just a tad bit too much for my taste, but not a big deal.

who cares? it is a good game, it is a crpg, it plays in the dnd universe.

I played a bunch of shadowrun games.... I don't know if they were Hairbrained Schemes. I had no issue with the art, and frankly I loved the idea of a modern-era fantasy setting. It didn't seem cartoonish to me at all.

Honestly, the divinity games seem more cartoonish and lighthearted than the shadowrun games I played. I feel like BG3 splits the difference - more serious, more realistic, but still uses bright colors so it doesn't feel so dark.

As far as BG games go, I think it fits pretty well... but I'm still working through the EA content (again). I'm happy that they changed up some core things to keep EA interesting (it took me a bit to get there, but now that I've disproven a few assumptions I had from EA, the game is engaging again).

One thing I really liked about the original BG was that it really did feel like you're starting from scratch, and progression mattered. Like, having to run and hide from mobs to survive made the original BG way more realistic... probably more realistic than any other RPG I've played. That said, when I first played it as a little kid, I got quickly frustrated with getting my arse kicked and gave up, and didn't replay it until literally 25 years later, so maybe it wasn't a great choice.

As for the OP's idea that this is D:BG - the artists are the same, so you're undoubtedly going to have a similar feel... but the game world story is wildly different, as are the underlying mechanics. I disagree that this seems like another divinity game.

You still haven't said what D&D game you think looks less cartoonish. What I actually think it is, is that you are not used to seeing D&D races and characters rendered in 3D up close. Usually this type of game only has low detail models that you view from the sky. You rarely ever have a closeup of anyone's 3D facial model.

And so what you are probably not used to is say a tiefling or gythyanki in close up cinematic 3D scenes. Realtime 3D rendering doesn't do the most amazing job of rendering skin to begin with, let alone the skin of fantasy races. And that's probably why you think it's cartoonish. It's more a tech limitation than a style choice.

You just don't notice it so much when the camera is 30 meters in the sky looking down or you are looking at a dozen blurry 2D pixels of micro people.

Let's just pray to a gods Larians wont make a neverwinter's night 3 (DOS4)
I absolutely love dos1/2 but they are enough. Dos3 was not the game i expected. Despite the fact that I understood this when viewing the first gameplay trailer...

That makes no sense. How does it harm you if there was another neverwinter game?

And yes, there will be more divinity games.

BG3 is not a divinity game though as any child can see. BG3 is possibly the most D&D a game has ever been.

I don't think they want to spend 6 years again on their next game though. So whatever the next project is, it will probably be something smaller in scale than BG3.

I started the "cartoonish" observation, which you seem to have so much gripe with. So I feel like I should step in with an answer to your repeatedly issued question, and the answer is - every one that I know of. BG1, BG2, ID1, ID2, NWN1, NWN2 and Solasta. Those are the dnd crpgs that I know of and they - all of them have less cartoonish animation style than BG3.
What I meant by it is ANIMATION style. Not art style. So whenever I see a combat animation with exaggerated character motion, that makes me think of Tom & Jerry - that's cartoonish. Whenever I see a character "wind up" before springing forward 20 metres in a woosh of flash that makes me think of anime - that's cartoonish. Whenever a spell casting looks like a dragonball character doing a kamehamewhatever - that's cartoonish.

I didn't say that cartoonish is bad, either. I said that it's not my cup of tea and that it (in my opinion) doesn't fit a serious and/or gritty setting or a serious and/or gritty story.

Not a lot of D&D games out there with this kind of fidelity. Certain;y none I've played. However I think comparing it to other similar fantasy games is fair, when we're purely talking art style. So I would say Dragon Age Origins would be a more "realistic" version of this style of game.

However that makes me think about how I quite liked the cartoony look of Dragon Age 2. Others freaked out about it but I thought it was neat to go for that kind of look, and it stands out because of it. So what I really think annoys me a tiny bit is kind of going between the two. Not going for realism but also not going for stylistic, which ends up looking not great at either? Something like that.

However none of this is a serious issue because as I said it's a minor gripe and the game still largely looks great. It's just if I were God and could change things about it that would be one.

While I too prefer RtwP I will say the battle time difference is often made up for by having less frequent but more impactful battles. In other words while fighting the bandits in the crypt might take three times longer, there's only one or two bandit battles in the crypt instead of 10 or 20. Also those encounters should, if well made, be more impactful and complex and not just trash mobs.

Secondly while BG3 is obviously an evolution from Divinity OS 1 and 2 it is also different in many ways. It has a much more serious story, it doesn't focus on gimmicky environmental stuff as much and the D&D mechanics are much deep and interesting. Also since you seem to be only experienced with DOS1 I will say DOS 2 is widely considered much better and then BG3 is better than that. So there's a big evolution there.

Which isn't always bad! Did you ever play the Shadow over Mystara et al line of arcade games? Those were most definitely not a traditional D&D game, but they were still awesome to play. :D