Thanks for posting the examples, I appreciate that.

I think part of the problem is that, in your first example from BG2, the view is looking straight down at the dirt floor of the forest. So, I think the fixed overhead viewpoint has an effect on the perceived brightness of the scene. Your first example from BG3 is looking at a more sideways angle, where you can directly see part of the sky through the trees and tbh it looks like what I would expect from a realistic scene in a thin forest on a bright day. The second BG2 example looks like it is in a cavern somewhere, so it's not surprising that looks darker.

Of course, Baldur's Gate 2 is not the most recent game we could be comparing to. BG2 was made 20 years ago and there have been other CRPGs set in Forgotten Realms since then. So, even though the new game is called Baldur's Gate 3, I'm not sure it makes sense to look to BG2 as the latest reference of Forgotten Realms artistic style.

For example, here is a forest scene from Neverwinter Nights 2, which has a similar level of brightness to the BG3 example. Afaik, NN2 was the last Forgotten Realms video game to be released (2006).

Here is another example from Neverwinter Nights 2, that shows some fairly clean and sparkly armour in a combat scenario. Forgotten Realms is high fantasy (even though it has some darker aspects to it), so I wouldn't say somewhat idealized, new-looking armour is out-of-place.

Personally, I never saw Fearun as a place where the sun never shines, or where there is a global shortage of soap and armour polish ;-)

shiny or not, as I've mentioned earlier it all looks much more like Bioware's Aurora-based (or its NWN2 cousin here) games, rather then an isometric clickety-click RPG.
Perspective matters. This way it's more of a third-person adventure.

Yeah, that's correct! The only problem is that if someone really want to make a "real" BG3 sequel in the future, now the BG3 title is occupied with this non-Bhaal spawn game. Which would mean that if someone want to continue the Bhaal saga somehow, then they need to call it Baldur's Gate: INSERT TITLE. Or maybe Baldur's Gate 3b - Bhaals Legacy or something else. It will just mess up the Bhaal spawn saga and be a blocker for future continuation.
Or maybe Baldur's Gate 4 - Reunion, or Baldur's Gate 2: EXPANSION TITLE etc...You get that point :P

Most of the gameplay screenshots I have seen of BG3 are top-down (as with the DOS games); however, for some reason neither of the screenshots cal1s linked to are. So, in a way, I'm not sure that's comparing apples to apples.

Also, please bear in mind that the main point I am disputing is cal1s and some other people claiming the game doesn't 'look Forgotten Realms'. I agree there are some visual style differences in the comparison with BG2. But then, BG2 is 20 years old and BG3 seems to be aiming for a more modern look, with a newer 3D engine. So, I think some difference in visual style is to be expected. There have been similar differences in visual style if we look at other franchises that were updated from 2D to 3D: Fallout 2 to 3; Daggerfall to Morrowind; Final Fantasy VI to VII; XCom. The Ultima series spanned over 30 years and there are very significant art style differences between many of the games.

As for the 'doesn't look Forgotten Realms' thing: I totally reject that. Forgotten Realms is far larger than just the original Infinity Engine games. There were many FR video games before and after the BG series. In discussing the art style of Forgotten Realms, it doesn't make any sense to simply ignore the 20 years of development that went into the tabletop setting, post-Baldur's Gate 2.

I think I understand your criticism just fine, but unfortunately it doesn't make sense. I don't think I implied anywhere that you are against more modern graphics technology, did I? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main criticism seems to be that the game either doesn't look like 'Forgotten Realms' or doesn't look like 'Baldur's Gate' (from an artistic viewpoint)?

Let me ask a couple of questions to help clarify:

Would you agree that the art style of BG3 looks consistent with more contemporary examples of Forgotten Realms video games (e.g. NN2, Sword Coast Legends)?

If so, but you still think it doesn't look like 'Baldur's Gate', why would a Baldur's Gate game be expected to have a different artistic style to other recent video games set in Forgotten Realms? Was there ever an intention that the BG games should look markedly different from other games/products set in FR?

I think this comment gives away what your real 'beef' with the game is. It's not so much about it not looking appropriate, but you don't like the fact it is a modern game and is called 'Baldur's Gate 3'. Basically, you're pissed because what you wanted was a throwback, retro-style BG3 and that isn't what they've given you. They've given you something more modern that is a consistent portrayal of the contemporary FR setting.

Because you are making the same mistake as many other people are, which is to look at the original BG games as if they existed in isolation. They didn't - they were just a small part of a much larger continuum of FR video games (and tabletop content) that has existed before and since. Baldur's Gate can't simply be separated from the wider Forgotten Realms setting, which has seen some 20 years of development and refinement since those games. Why would Larian/WotC ignore that?

In summary, I guess what I am saying is you are making the wrong comparison. Baldur's Gate 3 is a Forgotten Realms game, and imo a more reasonable comparison would be to other more recent Forgotten Realms games.

Small point of correction:

Secret of the Silver Blades is not a separate series; it is the third entry in the series started with (the original) Pool of Radiance; the middle game of that trilogy was Curse of the Azure Bonds.

There was also Gateway to the Savage Frontier and Treasures of the Savage Frontier, another (brief) series set in the Forgotten Realms. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2

.... neither of which tie in, even peripherally, to BG1 and BG2 (and now BG3).

Also, look at the Final Fantasy JRPG series. There is zero connection between any of them from 1 through 10 (then they made a few sequels to the 10th game, X-1 and X-2).

In this case, "Baldur's Gate" is the widely recognized brand name. It's a name that has market share built in. Only the stupid ones. Final Fantasy X was not a sequel to Final Fantasy IX;
Final Fantasy IX was not a sequel to Final Fantasy VIII;
Final Fantasy VIII was not a sequel to Final Fantasy VII;
Final Fantasy VII was not a sequel to Final Fantasy VI;
Final Fantasy VI was not a sequel to Final Fantasy V;
Final Fantasy V was not a sequel to Final Fantasy IV;
Final Fantasy IV was not a sequel to Final Fantasy III;
Final Fantasy III was not a sequel to Final Fantasy II;
Final Fantasy II was not a sequel to Final Fantasy I;

... yet somehow, Final Fantasy fans ere never confused by this fact.

Fallout 76 is not a sequel to Fallout 4;
Fallout 4 was not a sequel to Fallout 3;
Fallout 3 was not a sequel to Fallout: Tactics;
Fallout Tactics was not a sequel to Fallout 2;
Fallout 2 was only distantly a sequel to Fallout 1. EotB is a first-person grid-movement dungeon crawl / survival game.

BG3 is infinitely closer to BG2, than either of them are to EotB.

Or Wasteland, or Wizardry, and a ton of other titles.
Some series started out when gaming was in its infancy, so making a point out of akalabeth vs ultima ascension is not too fair is it? Infinity games were produced in a totally different environment, which is much closer to what we have even today.
Also some of the games mentioned just lost their personality with the transition. Fallout became a 'bethesda game', Xcom has lost most of its spooky charm and hardcore atmosphere (tho nominally it hasn't change that much - tactical view + strategic, however I don't know why they had to ditch geoscape). Ascension became the swan song for Ultima...
TES hasn't changed that much with Morrowind, in fact one may argue that it hasn't all the way from Arena) Bethesda really been making one game all along.
If anything nowadays they could've gone for "isometric" view just to distinguish themselves from the pack, if not for any other reason. Not everything has to be super-closeuppable and mega-detailed - its not a universal virtue. For some games it only hurts. BUT TEH SCREENSHOTS!!111
Ironically WotC could've have licensed it to Bioware and we'd have seen another Jade Empire/Dragon Age/Mass Effect/whatever they up to these days. They even have ditched Linux support in somewhat the same way as Larian.
Public's tastes are more and more thought to be generic by the publishers, so we could all just agree on one universal style for everything, one fits all unfortunately. Will just depend on how much money the suits have to throw per model or per texture.
can't say anything on this since I don't play PnP and generally have little idea what's going on with DnD outside of CRPG, but the icon style in the UI surely look very DOS-ish. Guess I'll have to watch a video or too after all)

Well, my point is that people seem to be expecting this particular franchise, which is now spanning multiple decades that saw significant developments in gaming/graphics technology, to have a very consistent visual style across the games. However, I don't think we have seen that in other very long-running franchises. Your point about 'infancy of gaming' doesn't apply to Fallout, XCom, Final Fantasy or Tomb Raider (to use another example).

I highly recommend you do take a look at a couple of gameplay videos. It's not a TPP game. For the most part, the viewpoint is a fairly high camera angle looking down at the action, in a similar way to the Infinity Engine games. That can be seen in the gameplay screenshots towards the end of the images on the store page as well. Like with DOS, it looks like you can zoom in really close to the characters to get a close-up view if you want to; however, the camera view is quite flexible and you can certainly zoom right out to get a top-down view, for those that want it.

If that would have happened, it would have had to have been before about 2011. That was when they released Star Wars: The Old Republic, which I believe was the last game they made that used a license. Following that, they shifted quite heavily towards developing their own IPs. These days, I doubt they would have the slightest interest in making a D&D-based RPG and besides, they're not the same company any more anyway.

You know, this is a good point. However, I think the biggest reason why so many games these days have such a similar look and feel is less about 'artistic styling' and more because so many RPGs are all using a very similar, generic setting. I even made a forum thread about this a while back. Many, many games are using a generic fantasy setting that is based on Medieval Europe, which is why there is such little variety. One of the main reasons many people love Morrowind is because the setting is so original; however, it seems developers have if anything become less adventurous over time with regards to settings. Even Bethesda's two follow ups to MW were very generic by comparison.

Bear in mind that Forgotten Realms is D&D's 'default' and most generic setting. It is also styled very much on Medieval Europe. So, it is to be expected that a D&D game using that setting will look fairly similar to many other RPGs that are also using generic settings. I would love to see Larian grow some balls and do a follow-up game set in Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape. Now that would look distinctive!

Another point is that in recent times developers have been more and more chasing after photorealistic graphics in games, which I think also somewhat reduces the scope for artistic freedom, when all games are trying to look like 'reality'.

Or Ravnica.

Or Eberron.

Or maybe a return to Krynn, the world of the Dragonlance novels & modules.

...

Or even, just, a different part of the Forgotten Realms:

... Maztica, which would have a Mayan/Aztec/Toltec aesthetic.

... The jungles of Chult.

... Kara-Tur, with it's Chinese, Japanese, and general Asiatic aesthetic.

I couldn't agree with you more. So many games have been set in a small region of the West Coast of Faerun, you would think it is the only part of the setting that exists. And of course, that area happens to be the most generic-looking of the most generic of D&D settings. I guess there was Menzoberranzan, which was set in the Underdark, but I can't think of many others.

The level of risk-aversion of CRPG developers when it comes to trying different types of settings is highly disappointing. But, I guess they have to make their games as 'accessible' as possible, for the mainstream masses that can't handle something different ...

BG1/2 were distinctive, BG3 doesn't look to be. That is I understand your beef also. As you have rightly pointed out it looks quite similar to NWN2 style on screenshots. Not sure it's a good thing.
Loved Planescape in PST setting as well.

As for our discussion re sequels and engines - consider Fallout Tactics. Admittedly the gap between the last proper Fallout and this one was only about 3 yrs, but it also had a completely different developer (from a diff continent) and an engine that they were familiar with (I think they've made some RC cars arcade game with it of all things). And they've managed to fully capture the *look* of Fallout with Tactics. I've read a post-mortem with one of the devs and he said that the volume of the artwork to be drawn was such that they had to enlist students to do it. And they all did a stellar job - it looked 100% Fallout (only the Supermutants I think were a bit off). If I were asked if I'd liked Fallout 3 done (visuals-wise) in the same vein the answer would be HELL YES

So I guess after all it depends on the will to do the right thing.

That said I personally don't hold Bioware's art/style of BG1/2 as some icon of style. Never had such feelings for it like for Fallout or PST. The first BG was kinda bland, the second too eclectic. But I guess to satisfy *me* Larian would have to a) be distinctive b) capture *something* from the first games c) improve on it. Not sure any of that is on their agenda.. Again, BG1/2 not that ancient like eg Wasteland where it was hard to translate much into visuals-obsessed world of 21st century. I mean they had tons of art and prerenders to use as an inspiration. Does at least something like icons/portraits/items/world look anything like BG?
Lots of games lost much of their look and feel with the transition to 3d. Building a fully 3d world is hard. So they tend to dumb it down, but ramp up the numbers of polygons/lights/textures etc. But it's about the only thing that sells in the AAA world. Or so they think.

As for the rules/story/plot well.. I'd take BG1 as sort of a reference and tried to do something similarly engaging but sort of low-profile. Certainly without the rather annoying theatrics of BG2s main story. But as we know from DOS games Larian doesn't seem to be of this particular inclination...