It is, of course. I have to be honest and say that I was never a big fan of the RT with pause combat in the original BG games (or the 2nd ed ruleset in general). I liked them more for the scope, plot, characters, despite those things. In fact, I always thought my perfect game would be a remake of BG2 with turn-based combat (a la Temple of Elemental Evil) and a more up-to-date D&D ruleset. So, my sympathy towards BG3 might be colored by that viewpoint. I find turn-based combat to be more faithful to a pen & paper RPG experience.

Yes, and PoE is great and I really like it. But, the problem is that game is clearly looking backwards and playing to the nostalgia of the fans of the original infinity engine games. That clearly isn't what WotC want. They want something that is more modern and 'progressive', that will appeal more to today's gamers. Although, obviously I can understand people that wanted something more similar to the originals being unhappy about it.

I think the real issue is the amount of time that has passed since the originals. If the sequel had been made 2-3 years after BG2, it might have been possible. But it's been ~20 years and D&D, Forgotten Realms and game technology have all moved on. BG2's story was pretty well closed out anyway and WotC clearly want a game that is set in the current time-period of FR, which is several hundred years after the events in BG2.

So, I don't think the sequel you wanted was ever going to happen, given the time that has passed. WotC now want to revitalize the franchise with a new engine, to bring it to a new audience. Which comes back to the point I made earlier: this is the only sequel we are going to get - it's this or nothing.

With all respect, I don't think anyone can say how close it is to D:OS unless they actually try the game and give it a chance.

I don't think there's THAT much of an issue w/ the amount of time since BioWare developed BG1+2 and now Larian's BG3. Especially in an age now where everything gets re-releases, remasters, and Enhanced Editions.

Literally, Beamdog brought back BioWare's BG1+2 with some remastered Enhanced Editions. Anyone who missed these way back in the days, well..it's certainly easy enough to catch these ones, these days. They're often on sale on Steam, GOG, and Fanatical for dirt-cheap.

If Larian's BG3 was a Free Open Beta or had a Free Demo, I'd certainly give Larian's BG3 a shot right now.

But, it ain't in either of those situations.

And they (Larian) are actually here charging here some $60 MSRP actually for Early Access and an incomplete game with only One Act - so...oh, heck no! No thanks.

Only One Act is here out of 3. They should be charging per each Act (i.e. 1/3rd of a game) or for the entire game for those that want the whole thing (if the "Whole thing" gets finished). There's no guarantees this game stays that course here - of it getting finished as planned, or anything of the sort - this is Early Access. Who knows what could happen. [shrug]

So, yeah - I'll just wait until BG3 is either much cheaper and/or is "done" with Version 1.0. I'll stick to my backlog (which is HUGE) and games that have had their actual development finished.

I've still got huge games like PoE 1+2; Shadowrun: Hong Kong; and Div: OS1 to go play.

I'm less invested in this discussion than you might think, got involved to point out the problems in your arguments really. Personally, as I already said, if there'd never be another CRPG using the D&D system I wouldn't be bothered in the least, and while I would like to see more games in the Forgotten Realms setting, it's not exactly there at the top of the priorities list. It'd just be a nice thing to have, the setting and lore (probably still something based on the pre-4E one, based on what I'm seeing here) without the system, but if it won't happen at all, can live with it.
Also, think Larian would have been entirely capable of making good gameplay systems for the game, as they have done for their own, and that they could have taken the lore, given it their own treatment and made a great game as a result.

As for what I played, Planescape: Torment (finished), Icewind Dale 2 (finished), Neverwinter Nights Diamond (original, Sou, HotU and KM and SG out of Kingmaker so far, still have WW left) and Baldur's Gate 1 (just reached Baldur's Gate, but without finishing what's to do before that, and didn't feel like finishing that and gave up... may go back someday, but maybe not). Tried IWD1 and ToEE too but noped right out right away. But for example the KotORs can be said to have a D&D-like system, but improved a fair bit. Still way too random, but definitely better anyway.

As for what is and isn't likely to happen, that never stopped me... There was a description of INTPs on a site at one point, saying those with this personality type only care for current reality as much as necessary to be able to explain what needs to change. The whole MBTI thing may be crap, but that sentence stuck in my mind, because it's so true for me.

Ars Technica is not my first choice for people I'd trust with game reviews, right under Polygon or Kotaku.
A lot of people are going to need to get over the fact that companies like "old school insert dev studio here" do not exist, even if those companies are still around and operating. People move on, quit, retire, etc, and even if Bioware was developing this game, it still wouldn't be the same, just the name.

At this point, I wouldn't trust Bioware to develop a basic 2D platformer without screwing it up somewhere and pissing people off, but that's just me. Screw me once, shame on you (DA 2) screw me twice, shame on me (ME: 3) screw me thrice? (Andromeda) Yeah, I'm done.

So yeah, I feel your post on a molecular level, my guy. Take this +1.

What Larian's doing just isn't BG3 to me. Doesn't matter how you cut it. It's not a few years later or even one decade story-wise/plot-wise; doesn't seem like a direct follow-up to BG2: Throne of Bhaal; they show dice-rolls; real-time with pause BioWare D&D combat is gone; and I doubt many or every BG1+2 character is actually here.

And this also isn't old-school late 90's and early 2000's BioWare type of gameplay. BioWare hasn't been the same in years, TBH. A lot of BioWare dev's have left, over the years - slowly buy surely. Drew K. left after DAO, Mike Laidlaw is gone, Jennifer Hepler is gone, Trent Oster is over at Beamdog, David Gaider is gone, Alan Miranda is gone, and the list goes on. And BioWare has turned more into an EA Studio just w/ the BioWare Brand-Name attached. Where anyone's guessed where it changed - many might probably start w/ DA2, where this downfall began to be noticed in their actual games; and of course it probably really began when EA bought them out.

Since Pillars seems to be more in the realm of what of what is Old-School BG-series BioWare was doing - that's probably where I think a true BG2 successor is at. Plus, Pillars 2 does have both real-time with pause and turn-based modes for the player to select, similar to what also even Arcanum was doing - which I really wish Larian opted for here with BG3.

Yes, I have not gotten to Pillars series yet - but, I sure do need to. Got them all backlogged. But, I've recently gone through a few long-winded RPG's - Wasteland 3; Shadowrun: Dragonfall; DAI: Descent DLC. I need at least a short break from these type of games.

And I still need to finish Torment: Tides, BTW.

I still think Hasbro and Larian should've opted for a different title - Baldur's Gate: Reborn, Baldur's Gate: Rebirth, or something of that sort. At least, that'd give a good impression of a Reboot here and make for better PR to long-term fans. And Reboots often give off a total reset where anything goes and a feeling that...well, this is something entirely and likely new and/or different.

Regardless...those that do their homework know and research as much as possible by following the previews, news, etc - BG3 from Larian will probably be great once it's finished, even if it ain't an Old-school BioWare-style BG3 entirely. I'm sure those playing Larian's BG3 know that this ain't BioWare's BG3; especially if they played BG1+2.

Also, more of the Div:OS series greatness is certainly welcome. And sticking D&D into that style is definitely interesting, I must say; I'm curious. And with some of the other stuff that it looks like they are doing here to push their game-style forward (i.e. making failure still a worthwhile option here, which sounds more akin to tabletop D&D) - yeah, that's good. Larian's BG3 really looks to be more of a total reboot and (r)evolution of the entire series here in BG3, in numerous ways - no real-time with pause for combat, all turn-based combat, 100 years after BG2, characters from BG1+2 won't be here, storylines won't entirely follow BG2: TOB directly, more cinematic-style conversations, etc etc.

Do I think Larian's BG3 will be great? Yeah. Larian just doesn't make bad games. Since Divine Divinity, everything they've done has been ranging from good-to-great. Though, especially when I'm dropping $ on something - I'd rather play it in a finished and polished state, when the game's actually completed and in a Version 1.0 state...with all its content actually there.

And good riddance. That was possibly the most bewildering thing to ever be put in a D&D game for me.

I guess that depends on what we see as a "successor". I mean, I totally see where your're coming form, I really do. But at the same time, I think it's important to note that a game like Baldur's Gate back in the 90's and a game exactly like it now are actually two very different things. Is something that's entirely backwards-looking and heavily relies on nostalgia really a true successor to a game that was praised for "setting new standards for RPG's to come" and being "a triumph [that] single-handedly revived the [computer role-playing game]"?

I don't know, but turn-based was around for RPG's even before real-time in RPG's. D&D and even Dragon Warrior 1 on NES were doing turn-based stuff back then. So, I guess the question is - when did grid-based & turn-based combat hit RPG's first? Seems like...many modern RPG's are going back to that grid-based with turn-based combat again.

I'm sure many developers could develop a new game w/ modern graphics with 4K texture support, RTX support, and DLSS support if they want to...and still retain that old style of gameplay and combat of "real-time with strategic pause".

DA: Origins (2009) had the BioWare real-time with pause combat, also. That in many ways was an old-school BioWare-style CRPG, but done in a more recent era and time with some modernizations.

They (Larian) still can keep the cinematic cut-scenes BG3 is doing, too. Heck, Neverwinter Nights 2 was doing stuff like that, back in the day - it just looks a million times better now in BG3, of course; I've seen plenty of videos and that stuff for conversational cut-scenes in Larian's BG3...and those look great.

Heck, there are even games like Pillars of Eternity 2 - which have BOTH real-time with pause combat and turn-based combat options now. Arcanum (2001) did this too numerous years, BTW.

You know, the real time/turn based thing really wasn't the main point of my post. Not even close. I just personally think that D&D should be turn base, but that has nothing to do with the part about the original BG being an important step forward and all the rest. Those were two separate remarks.

Yes, we are seeing a lot of re-releases and remasters at the moment. I assume here you are referring to franchises like XCom, Tomb Raider, System Shock? Although I think one very important difference with Baldur's Gate is that it is based on a license of another tabletop game (D&D), which most of those other games aren't. Many of those own their own IP and can go off and do what they want with it. However, BG is very much linked to D&D and Forgotten Realms and because of that is subject to the will of Wizards of the Coast, who own that IP. So, the situation is a lot more complicated and it's not easy to separate BG from what has been going on in parallel in the tabletop RPG.

I think the situation is indeed similar to the Fallout franchise, which you mentioned. In the sense that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see another 2D isometric Fallout game. Because, the original engine is too old and the current owners of the IP (Bethesda) want to make newer, more modern 3D games. They would not be interested in developing an updated 2D RPG engine just to make a 'throwback' game to pander to nostalgia. In the same way, WotC are not interested in making a throwback game on a 20-year-old engine - they want something more modern to revitalize the franchise, which is what they are going to give us, like it or not.

Absolutely. If anyone else was going to make an 'alternative' BG3, who would do it? There aren't really any other developers besides Larian that would be suitable candidates (at least from the POV of WotC):

Bioware clearly not, for many reasons. They lost interest in the franchise 20 years ago during the switch to 3D and their later shift away from licensed games. They are also clearly not the same studio they were back then and they are now owned by EA, who almost certainly would not be interested in a BG throwback.

Beamdog? Doesn't seem likely. They haven't got their own engine and have yet to demonstrate they have what it takes to make a new, original game of their own. Plus, Siege of Dragonspear seems to have had quite a lukewarm reception at best, which doesn't bode very well for the prospects of a fully-fledged BG3 developed by them.

Obsidian probably would have been the best chance for it, but it seems like if they were going to make a BG3, it would have happened by now. Several of their isometric RPGs are very good, but as already mentioned, their engine is 'old-fashioned' and not the new, progressive engine WotC are looking for. Plus, now they are owned by Microsoft, it may be less likely they would be able to/interested in developing a retro-style, licensed RPG.

I know I'm spouting a lot of 'home-truths' here that many people may not want to hear. But, it seems those people need something of a dose of reality. A Bioware-developed BG3 simply isn't going to happen, regardless of how much we may want it. This game by Larian is, imo, the best we can hope for.

Things I learnt whilst playing this game:

Rogues can still use sneak attack even if their ally within 5ft of their target is asleep

The tactic from Skyrim of repeatedly shooting arrows and then hiding immediately afterwards works really well.

I am a dirty save scummer. (I refuse to let my 18 charisma character fail persuasion checks!!!)

Yeah...there's tons of remakes, remasters, and re-releases these days. Metro Redux (for 2033 and Last Light); Doom 3 with BFG Edition; Wasteland 1: Remastered; System Shock 1: Enhanced; Yakuza Kiwami 1+2; etc etc. To mention them all, we'd be here a while and all.

I wasn't really getting that deep into Reboots, since that's what BG3 really seems to be here and is poorly named and a total PR disaster towards old fans of the BioWare BG games - b/c with the territory of a total reboot, that pretty much says this: all rules tossed-out the window from previous games.

You're starting over from scratch with everything with a total rename and not invoking a number in the sequel, so...you're re-writing all the rules. Namely, TR 2013 is a good one to look at, on that one (it ain't that). Though, that should've been called Tomb Raider: Reborn or Tomb Raider: Rebirth, or even Tomb Raider: Reboot - it's not surely anything like Core's TR's or heck even Crystal's TR's since TR: Legend. With RPG elements (leveling-up/upgrading elements), open-world approach, less linear, not travelling to numerous different countries/locations in one game - it doesn't seem like a real TR game, TBH.

Similar to Prey. Expect me to call Prey namely Prey 2017 or Arkane's Prey. It ain't Human Head's Prey by any means. Regardless, Prey 2017: The System Shock Style FPS/RPG hybrid is awesome.

But specifically - Beamdog re-released BG1+2 with Enhanced Editions; NWN1: EE; PST:EE; and even Icewind Dale EE. All of these which have real-time with pause combat, which BioWare made famous on that Infinity Engine with BG1+2. It's very likely: old gamers and modern games, by now, have gotten their hands on these. They're not that expensive, these days and age.

If we're looking at going 2D for a new game - do we even need to go there? 3D's fine; and games like DAO and NWN2 proved it can be done, with real-time with pause. That really doesn't dictate combat styles or anything. NWN2 was real-time with pause and that was full-blown 3D - and it was quite good. Though, Mask expansion was great, if you ask me; the real reason by NWN2.

Obsidian probably would've been best to do a true-blue BG3 in every way, as they've done stuff like Neverwinter Nights 2 (with 3D with real-time with pause) and also gone on to do stuff like Pillars series, all which are in that vein and style of the classic Infinite Engine games. And as I noted before, Pillars 2 has options for BOTH real-time with pause and turn-based combat; and that's great, as gamers have a choice there...just like Arcanum has. I would love to see Larian toss in a real-time with pause option into their BG3, as THIS real-time with pause was the combat system in BG1+2.

Surely, D&D is likely more friendly to turn-based stuff, as it's more akin to its tabletop nature. And this makes a ton of sense, in that way, that Larian goes this way with Baldur's Gate: Reborn (AKA Baldur's Gate III). But, this is NOT what BioWare gave us with BG1+2 - which are some of the best CRPG's ever made IMHO, BTW; and now Larian's calling this game BG3. RT with pause combat sped-up combat quite a bit, as...well, everything was real-time. And if you needed a strategy change b/c stuff wasn't entirely going your way - you paused the game, re-queued stuff, and...well, changed strategies.

I also don't need every new old-school style CRPG to now go down the turn-based path - seems like many RPG's now want to keep doing that. I literally have played XCOM: Chimera Squad, Shadowrun: Dragonfall, and Wasteland 3 this year (all which were great, BTW) - all with turn-based combat.

Also feels like...real-time with pause is starting to more and more get left behind. And there's plenty of room in this space for games to do numerous types of styles of combat too.

More and more games - and their franchises - are losing their identities by changing too much. They're not being themselves...and turning more so into other stuff. There's reasons game like DAI aren't as great as DAO.

Also, might as well ask - were there ever any mods for BG1+2 made to basically turn it into a straight-up turn-based game?

But, yes - Obsidian is owned by Microsoft and they're basically off doing their own stuff, not related to any 3rd party IP's - Pillars; Avowed; The Outer Worlds; etc etc.. Still would love them to get Alpha Protocol IP back from SEGA and do Alpha Protocol 2, TBH.

A few years ago, I might have disagreed with you on the RTWP vs TB games topic. But now I too prefer TB based system when it comes to isometric RPG games. It's much more relaxing and I find the games more enjoyable. Maybe age is catching up to me lol.

Lords of Xulima for example had a pretty good turn-based initiative system (though I can't say I'm fond of their combat system itself lol. Still a fun game though).

Don't get me wrong, BG1 & 2 will always be considered one of my all time favorites. I'd still replay them as is.

You mentioned Arcanum several times, but didn't it have turn-based and plain real time as options, not RTwP? Because I recall the RT option being basically unusable, too uncontrollable even for easy battles.

Otherwise, yeah, Obsidian would have been the obvious choice for another D&D/FR game, but doubt that'd still apply to MS-Obsidian now.
On the other hand, going so big with it wasn't necessary. So a smaller studio making a cheaper game that'd break even by just catering to the fans could have also been an option.
(Should mention that on another thread I said some time ago that inasmuch as I can say I trust a studio to make good games, the first name that comes to mind is Larian. But that's if left to their own devices, and their own IPs. A question now is whether WotC isn't asking too much of them.)

Actually, you might be right about Arcanum: it was straight real-time, not with pause. Basically, I think the switch to turn-based...was the pause, more or less.

Certainly, not the same as RTwP.

Been a while since I've played the super-underrated Arcanum.

So, let's go w/ Pillars 2 as my best example then, as it has both RTwP and turn-based.