How does BG3 Compare to Original Sin 1 or 2?

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

As in the title.

I enjoyed Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2, but both of them ultimately bored me after a while and I couldn't get immersed. I felt like they had excellent mechanical systems, but the story ultimately didn't draw me in very well. It doesn't help that combat encounters either were trivial or required lots of save-scumming to succeed in most of the time, and so I rarely felt like I won a battle because I was using proper tactics - but rather because I could exploit the environment and cheese the enemy AI into oblivion.

Does BG3 have similar gameplay to Divinity: Original Sin 1/2, and how does it differ?

Is the story presented differently? Being started on a deserted island in Original Sin 2 made me stop playing that game much quicker than in Original Sin 1, because it felt like I was doing MMO fetch quests for the most part rather than actually experiencing an adventure.

I don't mean any disrespect to the developers - they have made very good games - I simply want to know if this game is likely to appeal to me. If it has a tighter story, or makes combat more varied and less just "build the best cheese," or so on - I might enjoy it a lot.

Because ultimately story and engaging combat are what matter to me in an RPG.

Edit: I'm not even saying that the story or combat are "bad" in Original Sin 1 and 2 - they are well made. It's just that for my own subjective enjoyment, the presentation broke my immersion far too much on too many occasions. Games like Dragon Age: Origins managed to keep me far more immersed, while games like these or The Witcher 3 break my immersion many times by the way they are designed. In the case of the Witcher 3 for example - it's an excellent game, but there's nothing immersive about being given an "open world" where you can go ten feet off the trail and have invincible regular bandits that can kill a Witcher in a single hit.

[Rusted Metal]

The only similarity between DOS2 and BG3, is the freedom in the combat and it's turnbased.

That is where it ends, the tone is different, the rule set is different, the lore is different, the world is different. etc etc.


Also Dos2 didn't start on a deserted island... far from it...

[King of Scrubz]

They game feels more like Dragon Age Origins than DOS 2. The story telling style is 100% DAO style. The combat is VERY flexible. You can take 4 casters or 4 archers, but benefit greatly from a varied party. Soloing is viable without a perk needed like DOS2. They game is incredibly reactive to your race/class choice and actions you make. Stealth is strong to the point where they have nerfed it a bit in final build. You can talk your way out of a lot of fights and then sneak past others. You can knock people out if you wanna do a goody two shoes approach to combat, or incapcitate them and then rob them blind. There will be alchemy in the release version. Good, evil, and neutral dialogue options are plentiful.

As for story all I can say is I am personally invested in it compared to DOS where I really didn't care what happened. That of course will be the most subjective thing about any narrative focused game.

If you found the Witcher 3 hard or imbalanced than you will want to stick to classic in this game. Once you learn the systems its not to hard, and mostly fair. It is not perfect but this game will make you want to venture forth. That is the highest praise I can give it.

[gramarye28]

I've played DOS 1 & 2 and BG3, at least in early access. I find the story more compelling in BG3 (what I've seen of it) and BG3 is definitely an evolution for Larian as a studio honing their craft, That being said I also very much enjoyed DOS 1 & 2.

As far as save scumming I find myself gravitating towards that in BG3 mostly in dialogue as some conversation options require a dice roll in addition to whatever stat bonuses you get from your ability scores or spells you cast. However, I haven't found myself save scumming in combat at all. Although all of us in EA for BG3 are on normal or "classic" difficulty. That's the difficulty I would play the DOS games set at and I found no need to save scum there either,

As regards your immersion, I'm just not sure. Your post was thorough, but I guess I would need more information about what other aspects of those games took you out of immersion. All that being said, although I've only played BG3 early access it is shaping up to be an amazing game, to me at least. I hope that was helpful!

[gramarye28]

Oh, 1 more thing! If you didn't like the stranded thing in DOS2, BG3 at least in EA has some aspects of that. But as I said earlier the story is really compelling. I don't remember any fetch it quests. And I've played EA countless times. It really feels like you're exploring the world Larian has created.

[Homer Morisson]

Welp, I've played all of Larian's games and from the more recent ones, D:OS2 was my clear favorite, so that's my point of view for the following:

BG3 definitely has the DNA of D:OS2, as a veteran of the latter, you'll almost immediately feel at home with the former.

That said, it clearly evolved quite a bit, the level of freedom in stuff you actually can do if you think of doing something is much greater than it was even in D:OS2, not just with crafting, but also with environment interactions.

Combat has some similarities, sure, like I said, the DNA is there, but it does feel immediately and significantly different from D:OS2, and does feel like a proper D&D game rather than what some have falsely claimed a "re-skinned D:OS2".

[Zeel Ara]

It's an odd duck. Objectively it is pretty damn far from D:OS in mechanics, apart from the whole barrelmancy gimmick, and while the style of the storytelling is very much Larian, it is also firmly a classic D&D adventure. But it *feels* like D:OS. And a whole lot more than what it actually is.

My impression, from seeing different people's takes on it, is that those who either liked or were indifferent on the feel of D:OS often don't recognize it. They only register they many differences, and there are many. But to a group of people who disliked the D:OS games because of the feel, that is still very present.

So yea, it's an odd duck. If you were really into D:OS then you may be turned off by the many differences. If you didn't enjoy D:OS then you may like this because of the many differences. Or you may dislike it because of the strong but less tangible similarities.

I, personally, couldn't stand the style and feel of the D:OS games. Visual style and colour palette, characters, dialogue, overarching story, barrelmancy, and combo focused combat, those were all things that really didn't work for me. Not because they are inherently bad, but because they have a pronounced style that clashes with what I like. And those things are far more prevalent in BG3 than I would have liked. For all the many differences, it still very much feels like a Larian game. That's not an objectively bad thing. Larian makes great games, I just don't *personally* vibe with their style and their choices. And to someone like me, this game has far too much Larian DNA.

To me, the Pillars of Eternity games feel a million times more like BG even though they aren't in the same setting. I can even enable turn based mode in the second one and it *still* feel more like BG to me than BG3 does. But again, it depends on what aspects of a cRPG defines it to you personally.

If you didn't have strong feelings on D:OS then you either won't mind or won't notice at all.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by OTSEchoZenLogos:

-Original Sin 1 and 2, but both of them ultimately bored me.

-The story ultimately didn't draw me in very well.

-Required lots of save-scumming to succeed

-Exploit the environment

-Does BG3 have similar gameplay...Is the story presented differently?

-Ultimately story and engaging combat are what matter to me in an RPG.

-Games like Dragon Age: Origins managed to keep me far more immersed,

-Games like these or The Witcher 3 break my immersion.

You're not going to find the best writers in the world working on video games any time soon, so you're going to have to cut Larian some slack. Or you'll be outside playing Pickleball until Starfield releases.

Gamers are notorious for cheating, exploiting game flaws, and abusing overpowered abilities. I'm not surprised that you're a save-scummer. If you were doing it before then you won't stop with Baldur's Gate III. That's your choice. You either master the game, or cheat your way to the finish line.

I never wanted to purchase this game. For years I even mocked the idea that Larian was making another DoS replica. Until I learned what they were really manufacturing behind the scenes. This game is only similar to the DoS games in a handful of areas.

However, that may not be enough to please you. You're throwing a lot of your eggs into the writer's basket. Leaning that heavy on writing in a video game is setting yourself up for failure. This game will be more depraved and sadistic than previous games, but overall, the writing will only be a negligible improvement for you.

The rest of your eggs are in the combat basket. If you're going to cheat, then it's highly likely that the combat won't live up to your expectations, either.

You'll be eating a lot of scrambled eggs in August.

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

Originally posted by Rusted Metal:

The only similarity between DOS2 and BG3, is the freedom in the combat and it's turnbased.

That is where it ends, the tone is different, the rule set is different, the lore is different, the world is different. etc etc.


Also Dos2 didn't start on a deserted island... far from it...

It wasn't deserted, you're right, but I did feel like a glorified mail-man for far too long.

Originally posted by King of Scrubz:

...

If you found the Witcher 3 hard or imbalanced than you will want to stick to classic in this game. Once you learn the systems its not to hard, and mostly fair. It is not perfect but this game will make you want to venture forth. That is the highest praise I can give it.

I never thought The Witcher 3 was too hard, per-se. It's the fact that it had the flaw of many "open world RPGs" which don't seem to understand that having enemies that can one-shot you that aren't properly paced means you will constantly have immersion-breaking sections. Killing deadly monsters only to get slaughtered by random bandits down the road because their "numbers" are higher is not fun. Higher-level enemies in games need to be visually distinct and actually "seem" like higher level enemies, not just be given stat boosts which make them take hundreds or thousands of hits to kill arbitrarily.

I loved The Witcher 2 and played through that on its hardest difficulty, but that game never ends up being broken combat-wise because it is semi-linear.

Dragon Age: Origins is one of my favorite RPGs ever, though admittedly mainly due to the story and immersion I had in the world - the combat I could take or leave.

Originally posted by gramarye28:

...

As far as save scumming I find myself gravitating towards that in BG3 mostly in dialogue as some conversation options require a dice roll in addition to whatever stat bonuses you get from your ability scores or spells you cast. However, I haven't found myself save scumming in combat at all. Although all of us in EA for BG3 are on normal or "classic" difficulty. That's the difficulty I would play the DOS games set at and I found no need to save scum there either,

As regards your immersion, I'm just not sure. Your post was thorough, but I guess I would need more information about what other aspects of those games took you out of immersion. All that being said, although I've only played BG3 early access it is shaping up to be an amazing game, to me at least. I hope that was helpful!

Honestly, things like dice-rolls for conversations I don't mind so much. I tend to not save-scum for that sort of thing, but I do wish that RPGs with such rolls would make the outcomes more reliant on our choices and build while being less reliant on luck.

Immersion is a hard thing to describe. I was extremely frustrated in Pathfinder: Kingmaker recently (which I grabbed on sale) because the game basically gives you no way to know whether or not you'll encounter an end-game enemy at any given random point that is literally impossible to kill without prior knowledge. In an actual Dungeons and Dragons or similar tabletop campaign the Dungeon Master would tailor situations to your level and try not to ensure you are wiped out unless you do something incredibly stupid, but in certain "hardcore" RPGs like this it feels like little thought is put into such things because you can simply load an earlier save.

So needing to keep and load saves just to be able to progress because the game doesn't properly explain things or without warning puts you into impossible battles, or games encouraging exploration ending up punishing you for that exploration with random end-game enemies your "numbers" can't overcome, and so on - that breaks my immersion more than most other things. Though having a very good story and good writing can help a lot, and I don't think that DOS1 or 2 had a bad story per-se.

Originally posted by Homer Morisson:

Welp, I've played all of Larian's games and from the more recent ones, D:OS2 was my clear favorite, so that's my point of view for the following:

BG3 definitely has the DNA of D:OS2, as a veteran of the latter, you'll almost immediately feel at home with the former.

That said, it clearly evolved quite a bit, the level of freedom in stuff you actually can do if you think of doing something is much greater than it was even in D:OS2, not just with crafting, but also with environment interactions.

Combat has some similarities, sure, like I said, the DNA is there, but it does feel immediately and significantly different from D:OS2, and does feel like a proper D&D game rather than what some have falsely claimed a "re-skinned D:OS2".

Thank you. It having the same DNA I don't really mind, if it is better in other areas in ways that I personally disliked but others clearly didn't mind.

---

To others I didn't respond to - I don't think that the writing was really the problem for me in past Larian games. My bigger issue was more with the combat being exceptionally cheese-centered unless you played on trivial difficulty levels, which made me feel like I couldn't really experiment with builds or combat because there was usually an optimal broken way to get past any given situation which only made sense due to game logic rather than in-universe logic.

I'll keep an eye on this game regardless.

Edit: In essence, what breaks my immersion the most in RPGs is when the game systems don't allow me the luxury of actually role-playing as my character - the most basic requirement. I can't role-play as Geralt in The Witcher 3 for example if I die to random bandits right after killing terrible monsters because they get arbitrary stat boosts to be a hundred times stronger than the nearby monsters.

[Count D'Cinamon]

Well i think combat in Divinity 2 was pretty ok and the elemental stuff is def the fun part about it. Compared to that, BG3 has def much more stuff and depth to it since they are using dnd 5th edition as the base, with proper class specific mechanic and what not (not sure about multiclasting tho, since i havent bothered with them in DnD play before)

Now as for the story, i kinda disagree with you saying that the starter island in BG2 feels like a fetch quest and deserted. At least from what i've played of it through 2-3 proper play through, there's plenty of things to explore, plot to uncover, loot to gain.

With that said, i think BG3 is pretty similar in that regard, and the exploration aspect is def gonna be familiar than it is in Div 2 if not better. And just like a game of DnD, you get to roll for stuff during convo and what not which is always fun.

[Jon]

The same way you couldn't get immersed in to dos2 or 1, you can't get immersed. Basically the feel and look are the same as in dos2, except the DnD ruleset.

The story is basically the same as in d:os2, you're a chosen one who'll get guided by an entity fighting for a power that you ultimately choose to either pass on or keep to yourself.
The story is presented exactly the same, map design and progress is exactly the same.

The gameplay is absolutely great, but it just doesn't hold up in a RPG sense, the story, characters, the world none of them actually keep you going and playing but the gameplay.