Ok, to be honest - I have not played neither DOS2 nor this Beta version of BG3 so my input may not be that valuable, but I've compared the gameplays and screenshots and I really can not see anything that has to do at all with the BG saga? Why do they even name this game Baldur's Gate 3?
The HUD is not BG:ish at all. The selected character portraits looks exactly like DOS2, even the selected color (the white color) is exactly the same. The buttons are about the same as in the DOS2 HUD. The Dialogue box is not even close to the BG feeling. DOS2 dialogue box is more similar to how a BG dialogue box should look like.
There is a lack of classes to pick and you're not able to export your characters from BG2 to BG3 (which was the feature I was looking forward to the most of them all). And all the items icons and inventory HUD, it does not look even closely related to BG?

This is just a re-use of exactly the same engine as DOS2, with some new hud and animations + different content and music. BG3 is too important. It would have required an unique game engine and its own style.
This feels like a miss-use of the BG saga just for Larian to earn loads of money because all the BG fans are kind of forced to buy this game.

And also, why must everything always be so "extreme"? Extreme movements and explosions everywhere and giant stuffs and magic everywhere and everything is unrealistic and fast. Made for children, Japan style. Seeing the sword swish in blue in the air. Why does everything need to be that extreme in all new games? Same with Diablo 3. Just ridiculous. Diablo 1, 2 and BG1, 2 etc had realistic movements and realistic effects and it was just not "too much" as all the new games are.

It may be a good game in the end when I try it, but just by comparing screenshots and gameplay, I can say that I will be very much disappointed. I hope there is time enough to do some major tweaks to get the real BG feeling before the real game will be released. I really hope so.

Beamdog should have made this instead with their new engine. I don't care if the graphics would have been the same as BGEE/IWDee etc with some tweaks.

There is a reason why people love the BG saga. Why not even TRY to make it look similar?

But yeah, I have not played them yet. I'm sure it's an extremely good game, but not with the Baldur's Gate title.

Had you ever played DOS 2, you would have never said this. That's it.

$$$

You admit you haven't played EITHER game, so EXACTLY HOW IN THE NINE HELLS WOULD YOU KNOW?

I, for one, have been having a VERY authentic 5E D&D experience with the game so far. The only thing "missing", if you can even call it that, is a GRID to move on.

What makes Baldur's Gate "Baldur's Gate" is not really the UI or any of that stuff. It's the world/story built using D&D ruleset, converted into a playable video game. I think there are probably valid arguments where some of the D&D rules were tweaked or modified that make this seem more like DOS than it needs to, but as long as the story, companion interactions, D&D ruleset, make it an interesting and enjoyable game to play, then I think it can definitely be considered Baldur's Gate 3.

There are other CRPGs that scratch the BG1/BG2 gameplay itch (Pillars of Eternity for example), but I think the Baldur's Gate setting with some of the innovation that Larian brought to the genre has the potential to be great. I'm enjoying EA myself quite a bit already, and I expect when they incorporate feedback, it will be an even better finished product as a result.

One major difference I see so far between DOS (and probably BG3) and BG1/2 is that since everything is crafted, voiced, etc., the interactions are more meaningful perhaps in BG3 or DOS, but less than what you get in BG1/2 as far an number.

Both styles have their place... I loved POE 1 and 2, and I loved BG1/2, and DOS1/2 also. I think maybe some people just didn't realize that this was not going to be a graphically updated BG2 clone.

Well, I only partly agree with you. A lot of games out there are based on the D&D ruleset without having the magic feeling BG has, especially some older SSI games. It's actually very interesting analyzing what actually makes Baldur's Gate "Baldur's Gate" or Diablo or Monkey Island etc. It's probably a combination of all the art and music and gameplay and story and everything.
The inventory and items were super interesting in BG/IWD, but they were not really interesting at all in NWN (in my opinion). Diablo 1 items are very interesting, but Diablo 3 items is just random stuff etc...
Pillars of Eternity was good and I finished the first one out, but I never really got the BG feeling even if it had similarities.
Of course BG3 can have totally different graphics, but this could have been any other new RPG, but with just some references to the forgotten realms world. I just feel sad that they never stick to the "feeling" anymore.
If you've played Origin Ultima series, if you compare Ultima IV from 1984 with Ultima IX from 1999, one is in 3D, and one is kind of the worst graphics you can find. But both of them kind of have the same magic. I can really feel the same feeling both when playing the one from 1984 and the one from 1999.
This is where 99% of all the modern sequels are failing. They just expand the brand because it's popular and will bring cash. They don't really respect the prequels and what made them good. Diablo 3 is a good example of that. It was very fun, but it was not Diablo at all. Just some random good looking 3D hack 'n slash game with light references to the prequels.

Yeah that's fair. I think the story/writing etc. of BG1/2 and Planescape Torment were so good, and the lore of the world was so entrenched in the items, places, etc., they really stood out and made them great.

My main point was - if its running on a modified D:OS engine, and doesn't play exactly like BG1/2, that isn't a reason to not call it Baldur's Gate.

We may never get the magic of BG1/2 back, but I'll give Larian a chance to do something good with the franchise.

I'm thinking of replaying BG1/2 and PS:T during the wait between BG3 EA and the final release. I don't think I've played through those three in about 15 years or so.

@ the OP, a few comments:

1. I'm playing through D:OS 1 at the moment. It's a really good game and the engine is imo fantastic. It looks awesome and I love the turn-based combat. I'm a big fan of the original BG games as well, however I have to say the D:OS engine is probably the most faithful recreation of a pen & paper RPG that I've seen in a videogame. I strongly recommend giving it a try before criticising it.

2. It's clear with BG3, WotC wanted something that is modern and up-to-date, with a new engine, that will appeal more to today's gamers. So, the game you wanted, with something that looks and smells very close to the infinity engine was never on the cards. Those games are over 20 years old - WotC is never going to have that. It's been too long since the original games and both D&D and game technology have moved on. Imo, the Divinity engine is easily the best choice for a modern RPG engine to build the game on.

3. Something all the critics should bear in mind: regardless of history, what its called, whatever, this is the first D&D-based CRPG we have seen in almost 10 years. So, I don't think we can really afford to be super-fussy, y'know? Personally, I am willing to ignore stuff like the name and whether or not the plot has a canonical link to the original games. If they have made a really good new RPG that plays well; has an interesting plot and is based in Forgotten Realms/D&D, imo that's a great thing. Also, given how long it's been since the last D&D game, if this one doesn't sell well, chances are high we may never see another one. So, if you want to see more D&D based games in future, you might want to consider supporting this one?

you're coming from the assumption that the dissatisfaction many are expressing is mostly coming from the fact that ppl can't accept that THEIRS BALDUR'S GATE won't come back.
But it's not only that and for me personally it's not that at all. The big problem is that the originals were a.. well original concept with it's own look and feel, style and substance.. see where I'm going? In this case we're offered something of a knock-off, which looks a lot like DOS, feels a lot like DOS, and has been produced quite swiftly by the authors of duh DOS.
It's rather a different kind of sin...

And this comes from neither a BG nor a DOS fanboy. PST has always been the darling for me, as for DOS by the latter parts of DOS1:EE I positively loathed the game.

As for the DnD rules, well it could be a part of the problem - WotC needed a *relatively* cheap vehicle to promote their product and slapping a BG badge on a Larian's next big thing seems like a win-win for them both. But I'd imagine that the main market for 'real life' PnP DnD is Calif... ahem, the US, and the further east you'll look the smaller the relation of WotC products consumers to ppl that are gonna play BG3 will be. Thus the argument 'at least we're getting a modern DnD game folks' is by for not universal one... Nobody would've reproached Larian if they've announced an original title and licensed DnD 5e for it. But they both needed a vehicle to make money. Question is - do we as customers need it so much?

It's not an assumption. My post was based on a lot of comments and negative reviews I have read from people who are not happy with the game. The main complaints that seem to keep coming up are:

1. New story arc/weak narrative link to the originals.

2. It's using 5th ed D&D rules, rather than 2nd ed.

3. It's using a different engine, not the infinity engine. Combat is turn-based, not RTWP.

4. Price is too high for early access. Ok, so your beef with it is different. Fair enough. So, you are more concerned that the look and feel of the game is too close to DOS and not distinctive? I admit I haven't played the Early Access BG3 (have you?), but judging from the screenshots and videos I have seen, it doesn't look that similar to DOS to me. I am playing DOS 1 atm and one of the things I am not very keen on is the style of the game, which in many places is a bit too 'cartoonish'. With BG3, it looks like they have made quite an effort to aim for a style that is more realistic, gritty and serious, which should suit a D&D game better. So, I don't agree with the criticism that BG3 looks like a DOS clone with D&D 'skin'. The FMV sequences look very different than anything that was in DOS and the UI doesn't look that similar.

Of course, it is quite possible for games to share the same base engine and still look very distinctive. Just look at all the games that have been made with the Unreal engine, for example. It wouldn't have made any sense for Larian to have developed a brand new engine for BG3, when they already have a modern one that works very well.

Also, bear in mind that one reason BG2 could have more content than BG1 is because a lot of the development time of BG1 went into making the engine. So, it seems you would rather they had just chosen a new name and not used Baldur's Gate? Tbh, I don't really understand why some people seem to be hung up on the BG name. It's just a name, after all. If Larian have made a great RPG that is using D&D licensed content, then surely that can only be a good thing for people who are fans of D&D-based CRPGs? If they felt it necessary to use the Baldur's Gate name to grab attention for marketing purposes, why is that such a big deal? The game has to be a win-win for both Larian and WotC. They are businesses that have to make money, otherwise the game couldn't possibly have happened.

It's hard for me to see how we could hope to have a better sequel to BG2 than this, given how long it has been since the original games and the current situation with WotC, D&D and CRPG development studios in general.

1. New story arc/weak narrative link to the originals.
well something throwing back to the origs would be logical. but less "desirable" in a "product".
as to the quality, as I've said Larian writing might be not to everyone's liking. Certainly doesn't hold up to Black Isle/Troika/etc from 20 yrs ago. DOS == pathos, cosmos, and soap opera. And an endless stream of baddies mundanely explaining their plans before disappearing in a puff of smoke. Didn't it occurred to them they employed this trope way too much? The lack of inner occam's razor is a bad characteristic for a game designer.. Ofc doing things other ways is more difficult...

2. It's using 5th ed D&D rules, rather than 2nd ed.
3. It's using a different engine, not the infinity engine.
no-one in their right mind would want 2e and infinity in 2020. There were already engines superior to it even back in the day - eg Troika's ToEE which came out just a year after Infinity games fizzled out (along with Interplay).

Combat is turn-based, not RTWP.
I for one hated "active pause" - TB is the way to go. One of the reasons I gave up trying to get into Pillars - I've had enough of that system already.
The problem is not that it's RTWP or TB, problem is it's Divinity.

4. Price is too high for early access.
well that's a moot point in the grand scheme of things. don't want it don't pay. so yeah that's not my gripe either. The lack of Linux support stops me from considering to buy it anyway. Now that's a gripe (and answers the q whether I've played it or not).

>With BG3, it looks like they have made quite an effort to aim for a style that is more realistic, gritty and serious
good to know maybe not all is lost. But the obsession with close-ups, visual details and such still makes it IMO impossible to think of it as a BG successor. It's more of a later Bioware's Aurora-titles knock-off (like various Jade Empires and such). So that was the oppo to go with old-school style without doing anything silly as using 2e or gosh infinity. But again, it would be much harder to peddle it - I mean what screenshots you would show off on E3s and PACs then?
With useless use of 3d and the lack of space left for imagination don't make it superior to BG but do make it *very* different. Oh, and modern ofc...

>Also, bear in mind that one reason BG2 could have more content than BG1 is because a lot of the development time of BG1 went into making the engine.
that's is quite so. As it become apparent with the release of the sequel, BG1 was more of a test-run/demo of the early Infinity efforts.

To conclude - yes they have to sell it, Maybe my personal gripe is more how DOS1 ended up to be (for me) and how it universally adored with no respect to its flaws. Still, since they were so successful with DOS1/2 I can't imagine they wouldn't just transplant much of it into a new game. The same way they wouldn't make a new engine (this is however logical).
Yes, a "classic" RPG these days is not something to frown upon by itself, maybe I'm just not a fan of Larian's take on the subject...

I don't have the feeling of playing DOS2 by any means.
I have seen people complaining about how it is not real time / pause, but I don't really care.
When I played through POE I was pausing at all times and didn't really like that real time with
pause schema; I don't think that a game's combat should really be fixed to what could be delivered
at the time of the first edition and keep the system and ui the same.

I would consider vage and unprofessional to realease a game that does not make use of the latest
advancements and techniques to allow for a different and more complex playthrough; obviously
while keeping the theme, context, and so on.

I enjoy rolls and how the interface is laid out because it helps me reason about dnd rules and how
it is played.

So far in early access, it looks like, that they imported all engine feature form DOS2, even the purple and green magic items, almost the same UI, hp bars, big animations, big divinity maps, chaining characters together and many more...

Also the story starts almost the exact same as DOS2, which is not too clever, if you plan to make a new game...
It feels like, that they did not even try to make it similar to the original BG games at all. They failed to create a new identity, they focused on adding new features to DOS.

Cutscenes are very nice and it is a good game, but it is not BG, it is a DOS game with dnd elements...

I have played and beat DOS and DOS2. I have played the BG and BG2 games (as well as Torment: Planescape and TOEE plus the old gold titles of games like Bards Tale and Silver Princess). I've played about 10 hours and not gotten very far in BG3.

As I stated in First Impressions post, my impression is that this is DOS3. It's D:OS3 with a different rule set thrown on top and a new story.

For example (as mentioned in my First Impression post): After the opening sequences, you are near an ocean, and you can loot barrels with rope and crafting looking items (DOS was a loot fest of stuff to give you stuff to use in crafts). It has the clams on the beach to pick up (just like DOS). It has bread and apples and other stuff, probably for baking crafts (I haven't gotten to any crafting yet, but the items are still there). Really? All that is missing is the Red Lizard looking out over the ocean and the pet pal skill so I can talk to a cat to be an exact reenactment of DOS2 after it's opening sequence. It even has the nearby town (which I haven't gotten into yet, will play more this weekend).

I feel no nostalgia or common place with BG series at all. To me, its DOS3.

As far as giving kudo's to DnD for letting BG3 be made as the first game in ten years, and they wanted a DOS clone? I'll hold my kudos.

EDIT: OH! And lets not forget! DOS2 had you start on a ship that ship-wrecked. See any similarities? Wow. It's the exact same so far in allot of areas.