Let's hope we do not get the incredibly bad postures from D:OS 2, though. In character creation they look like their spine will snap any moment, or in case of the female human knight like she is planning to do a pole dance around her sword.
And I want to be able to use portraits for my characters and not zooms of the 3d models.
That's... way too detailed. Unless it's for cut-scenes/dialogue, or something. In a first-person game like Skyrim/Witcher 3? Sure, that would be great. But for a tactical party-based game that's supposed to be an abstraction of D&D, I want an abstraction.
You aren't quite wrong, but we're taking about like $50M budget here. Games that big don't really have abstract graphics, so imo it's pointless to expect otherwise. FWIW this is one of the reasons I'm quite indifferent about the title and nor sure if I'm gonna get it.
Talking about art style, i wonder. Armor/weapons will look like actual weapons like DkS or look like Carnival suits aka D3 looking?
To be fair, on divinity, armor looks "carnival like" but not in the same degree as wow... What i love about DkS is that even the "fantasy" armor like Havel's armor looks like things that would be effective in the hands of someone that happens to have super strength.
I saw all models that she posted(even the mature one), but found no clue about the Artstyle of BG3. https://www.artstation.com/alenad
Is almost confirmed that the leveling, combat, spell, melee and ranged combat, etc will be completely different(worst probably), but i an still curious about artstyle.
I haven't made any actual predictions of the game yet, but seeing these graphics, I'm gonna toss my hat in. With the high level of detail we are seeing in the example, we probably aren't gonna get an isometric view. You wouldn't be able to see the detailed faces and grphics like that are too time consuming and expensive to not be shown. We are probably gonna get a camera like the one in Dragon Age: Origins console port and DA2. Third person.
I haven't made any actual predictions of the game yet, but seeing these graphics, I'm gonna toss my hat in. With the high level of detail we are seeing in the example, we probably aren't gonna get an isometric view. You wouldn't be able to see the detailed faces and grphics like that are too time consuming and expensive to not be shown. We are probably gonna get a camera like the one in Dragon Age: Origins console port and DA2. Third person.
Yeah, agree. Was my prediction too in another thread.
NWN1/2 has an completely different camera than BG1/2 or IWD1/2 and worked properly. I understand other complains but this i don't agree. So yes, even if the camera become more NWN or Dragon Age like, i don't think that will be bad.
It has an immersive OTS exploration view and a great tactical view. And it moves between those two so smoothly. Also running in the OTS view feels really good and responsive.
I would be happy if BG3 played like DAO but with D&D rules and 2020 visuals. Origins' only flaws were the MMO like designs e.g. cooldowns and a silly level based equipment grind. But those don't exist in D&D... right Larian?
Someone posted something new that I had not seen before; I posted a reaction. Is that okay with you? Are you offended? Does it hurt your delicate sensibilities to read sn opinion that doesn't match your own?
If that's how you feel you should probably just get off the internet...
Two posts of yours full of emotionally based argumentation. Two of mine without. You do the math.
DA:O IMO has an much better camera than NWN2 and look, i prefer NwN1/NwN2 over DA:O.
IMO people valorize perspective too much. I prefer first person perspective, but will not avoid play tons of games due the lack of First person. But will not lie, if an game with the same length and depth as P:K comes with Eye of The Beholder camera(1990), i will love more than i love previous D&D game
That character model would make a good Jaheira. It's the way I've always envisioned her if she were played by a live actress.
She definitely has that 'omnipresent authority figure' look.
That model does look pretty fancy. I have no clue about game resources, but if that is in fact the level of detail of the game engine, how resource/hardware intensive would it be? After all, it is not just a single Lara Croft that needs to be rendered, it's (hopefully) 6 party members, their movement, an unknown number of enemies, spell effects, environments, etc...
The issue of spell effects is of course lessened with TB... but I personally am still wary on that...
Someone posted something new that I had not seen before; I posted a reaction. Is that okay with you? Are you offended? Does it hurt your delicate sensibilities to read sn opinion that doesn't match your own?
If that's how you feel you should probably just get off the internet...
Two posts of yours full of emotionally based argumentation. Two of mine without. You do the math.
subtledoctor posted a comment simply saying that he prefers a different graphical style over super detailed realism when it comes to tactical rpgs. Someone responded with, "Oh, you don't like good graphics?" It was a strawman response that didn't even touch on what the post was saying. This kind of thing has been happening CONSTANTLY across this entire section of the forum. We are very sick of it happening, so yeah, we are a little frayed. You've been gone for awhile, so you haven't seen all this going.
It has an immersive OTS exploration view and a great tactical view. And it moves between those two so smoothly. Also running in the OTS view feels really good and responsive.
I would be happy if BG3 played like DAO but with D&D rules and 2020 visuals. Origins' only flaws were the MMO like designs e.g. cooldowns and a silly level based equipment grind. But those don't exist in D&D... right Larian?
^This. So this. I realize a lot of people in this forum don't care for the DA games, but if BG3 is going to have a "modern" look and feel to it, and I fully expect it surely will, then the DA games are what I'd very strongly prefer it to look and feel like, albeit with D&D 5e rules obviously. Honestly, I very much prefer the look and feel of the DA games than the IE games. <please don't throw stuff at me>
@subtledoctor that’s just your opinion. I think Dragon Age Origins was great and enjoyed all aspects of the game. I always felt the zoom distance was fine and I never found it to be cramped or feel like the combat was sloppy and I definitely didn’t find it unsatisfying. I had a great time with the game.
I got a feeling you guys would like to see BG3 *exactly* the same as BG2, like copy/paste the same. It could be that there will be similarities to DoS2 in terms of graphics, since the game will be running on updated DoS2 engine, but I dont't see the game will be in any means similar to SCL. I mean SCL was a complete let down and cause the studio to go bankrupt. It would be completely stupid from Larian to go the same route. When I read some of those comment it looks like the game will be thrash if even one element would not meet one's expectations. Too good graphics, thrash, turn based, thrash, no to hit rolls, thrash, to much resemblance to DoS2, thrash, "3" in the title, thrash. C'mon guys. BG3 will not be BG2, but I strongly believe it will be equally great game. Also if it turns out that BG3 is being made by Beamdog not Larian, I suspect you would find other things to state BG3 will be a let down.
I got a feeling you guys would like to see BG3 *exactly* the same as BG2, like copy/paste the same. It could be that there will be similarities to DoS2 in terms of graphics, since the game will be running on updated DoS2 engine, but I dont't see the game will be in any means similar to SCL. I mean SCL was a complete let down and cause the studio to go bankrupt. It would be completely stupid from Larian to go the same route. When I read some of those comment it looks like the game will be thrash if even one element would not meet one's expectations. Too good graphics, thrash, turn based, thrash, no to hit rolls, thrash, to much resemblance to DoS2, thrash, "3" in the title, thrash. C'mon guys. BG3 will not be BG2, but I strongly believe it will be equally great game. Also if it turns out that BG3 is being made by Beamdog not Larian, I suspect you would find other things to state BG3 will be a let down.
I don't think this is a fair summary at all, given that I (and other people as well) gave a detailed breakdown which changes I would be ok with and others which I think would be very detrimental.
As for "strongly believe it will be an equally great game" I think it is much too early to tell with the details we have.
I think there are very legitimate criticisms that can be made for the D:OS 2 games in terms of the underlying RPG mechanics like itemization, character creation, armor system and skill/attribute system. For a D&D/Baldur Gate successors I feel that getting all those mechanics in great shape is critical.
I haven't made any actual predictions of the game yet, but seeing these graphics, I'm gonna toss my hat in. With the high level of detail we are seeing in the example, we probably aren't gonna get an isometric view. You wouldn't be able to see the detailed faces and grphics like that are too time consuming and expensive to not be shown. We are probably gonna get a camera like the one in Dragon Age: Origins console port and DA2. Third person.
That would be an interesting experience (personally - I so hope you are right here!). There is BG-1 mod for NWN2, so, anyone interested how BG feels with such camera can prepare himself
On the other hand - Larian has a game engine that works perfectly, already tested (twice), allows multiplaying and design of very detailed world and fits the iconic camera - why would they change anything?
Vincke remembers me a lot of Jay Wilson in the minset "A is the better example of game of his genre, but lets redesign A and put B elements in A" on D3 he brougth a lot of mmoish mechanics into Diablo. In the Vincke, i fear that he will put a lot of D:OS mechanics into BG.
The D20 system worked properly in any game that used it correctly. From medieval fantasy dungeon crawlers to star wars games(kotor 1/2), anyone here thinks that swtor is better than kotor? Swtor has a lot of mmoish mechanics.
Someone posted something new that I had not seen before; I posted a reaction. Is that okay with you? Are you offended? Does it hurt your delicate sensibilities to read sn opinion that doesn't match your own?
If that's how you feel you should probably just get off the internet...
Two posts of yours full of emotionally based argumentation. Two of mine without. You do the math.
subtledoctor posted a comment simply saying that he prefers a different graphical style over super detailed realism when it comes to tactical rpgs. Someone responded with, "Oh, you don't like good graphics?" It was a strawman response that didn't even touch on what the post was saying. This kind of thing has been happening CONSTANTLY across this entire section of the forum. We are very sick of it happening, so yeah, we are a little frayed. You've been gone for awhile, so you haven't seen all this going.
I've read all posts in this sub-forum, so do not make the mistake of thinking I've missed it. No one is being/should be attacked for their opinions and neither "side" has exclusiveness over the other. Argumentation about how those opinions are voiced is still valid though.
"So it was that when Baldur’s Gate came out in 1997, Larian Studios wasn’t a household name in the genre. It was an unknown Belgian developer working on an RPG doomed to cancellation – The Lady, the Mage and the Knight. Meanwhile, Bioware was making its name with an RPG that combined the high fantasy freedom of Dungeons & Dragons with the immediacy of real-time strategy.
“I was very… I wouldn’t say jealous,” Larian head Swen Vincke remembers. “But I would’ve liked doing that.”
"This isn’t a Divinity game. The bleak birth of a mind flayer in Baldur’s Gate 3’s teaser trailer was designed specifically to signify a change in tone from the wilfully daft Original Sin. Baldur’s Gate was never short on silly tangents, but took its central story of a world caught up in the sibling rivalry of demigods deadly seriously.
“It’s going to be somewhat darker, more serious,” Vincke says. “But serious topics work much better if there’s a little bit of humour in there, and Dungeons and Dragons is about having fun at the tabletop. So that means there is going to be stuff that will make you smile.”
"As in the original game, your adventure will start outside the grand city of Baldur’s Gate – trading hub, playground of iniquity, magnet for world-ending catastrophe – but eventually lead you into its heart. Baldur’s Gate 1 functioned almost as a sparse open world stitched together by loading screens, but the sequel sensibly cut the map count in favour of fewer, more densely-packed areas, which is the approach Larian is taking too.
“We take snapshots, because we have an adventure we’re going to go and do,” Vincke says. “We’re not going to make it one big open-world city simulation. It’s not that type of game.”
"“If you look at what the Fifth Edition has done, characters like Boo and Minsc are still alive,” Vincke points out. “Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3.”
Who knows the average lifespan of a miniature giant space hamster, anyway?"
"I love that title," inXile CEO Brian Fargo told IGN. "You know, both me and [Obsidian CEO] Feargus [Urquhart] were chasing that for years. [Larian CEO] Swen [Vincke] too. All of us, for a decade."
"Feargus had a better inside track than I did and he wasn't able to do it. And then Larian ended up doing it, which was a great choice by the way. It was a great choice. [But] we all tried for it."
So it shows - BGIII by Larian is not something that they wanted to get on a whim. They thought about this for many years and took their steps.
And it's not only Beamdog who approves the choice. As you see, InXile (and possibly Obsidian as well, although it's not written directly) approves that choice as well.
One extra bit: "We put some thought into the plot design, I remember. It's been over 15 years. All I remember is the [player character] was being persecuted. Everything was going bad and they were blaming the protagonist and you had to clear your name." - sounds a bit like the end of Siege of Dragonspear.
"So it was that when Baldur’s Gate came out in 1997, Larian Studios wasn’t a household name in the genre. It was an unknown Belgian developer working on an RPG doomed to cancellation – The Lady, the Mage and the Knight. Meanwhile, Bioware was making its name with an RPG that combined the high fantasy freedom of Dungeons & Dragons with the immediacy of real-time strategy.
“I was very… I wouldn’t say jealous,” Larian head Swen Vincke remembers. “But I would’ve liked doing that.”
"This isn’t a Divinity game. The bleak birth of a mind flayer in Baldur’s Gate 3’s teaser trailer was designed specifically to signify a change in tone from the wilfully daft Original Sin. Baldur’s Gate was never short on silly tangents, but took its central story of a world caught up in the sibling rivalry of demigods deadly seriously.
“It’s going to be somewhat darker, more serious,” Vincke says. “But serious topics work much better if there’s a little bit of humour in there, and Dungeons and Dragons is about having fun at the tabletop. So that means there is going to be stuff that will make you smile.”
"As in the original game, your adventure will start outside the grand city of Baldur’s Gate – trading hub, playground of iniquity, magnet for world-ending catastrophe – but eventually lead you into its heart. Baldur’s Gate 1 functioned almost as a sparse open world stitched together by loading screens, but the sequel sensibly cut the map count in favour of fewer, more densely-packed areas, which is the approach Larian is taking too.
“We take snapshots, because we have an adventure we’re going to go and do,” Vincke says. “We’re not going to make it one big open-world city simulation. It’s not that type of game.”
"“If you look at what the Fifth Edition has done, characters like Boo and Minsc are still alive,” Vincke points out. “Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3.”
Who knows the average lifespan of a miniature giant space hamster, anyway?"
"I love that title," inXile CEO Brian Fargo told IGN. "You know, both me and [Obsidian CEO] Feargus [Urquhart] were chasing that for years. [Larian CEO] Swen [Vincke] too. All of us, for a decade."
"Feargus had a better inside track than I did and he wasn't able to do it. And then Larian ended up doing it, which was a great choice by the way. It was a great choice. [But] we all tried for it."
So it shows - BGIII by Larian is not something that they wanted to get on a whim. They thought about this for many years and took their steps.
And it's not only Beamdog who approves the choice. As you see, InXile (and possibly Obsidian as well, although it's not written directly) approves that choice as well.
One extra bit: "We put some thought into the plot design, I remember. It's been over 15 years. All I remember is the [player character] was being persecuted. Everything was going bad and they were blaming the protagonist and you had to clear your name." - sounds a bit like the end of Siege of Dragonspear.
Thanks, some quick thoughts.
Little new in here, most is standard company speak. I.e. of course you are going to say you wanted to go this for a long time when picking up an famous RPG series with a big budget. And of course, other studios will congratulate and approve. Game developers switch companies all the time, so why burn bridges without need? So while all this is sensible, I will not put much stock in it in either direction.
On old characters: I hope they do not overuse them, I would prefer a fairly clean break with the past. Cameo is fine, of course.
On BG2 like area focus vs BG1 open world style exploration: this is actually something I commented a bit on in the past. I felt the style of each game was perfect for the game's level range, i.e. low-level party runs into adventures just by turning the next corner. But a high level party needs to seek out appropiately challenging adventures. Even ToB being focus on a single epic-level storyline with few sidequests felt appropiate. So I am not really a fan by starting with BG2 style when we play a new character, but this is definitely only a very minor gripe.
I got a feeling you guys would like to see BG3 *exactly* the same as BG2, like copy/paste the same. [...] When I read some of those comment it looks like the game will be thrash if even one element would not meet one's expectations. Too good graphics, thrash, turn based, thrash, no to hit rolls, thrash, to much resemblance to DoS2, thrash, "3" in the title, thrash.
I personally don't want to see a copy/paste, but just stop for a moment and consider how many similarities there are between BG1 and BG2. Are they copies of each other? Clearly not, even though the underlying mechanics and gameplay are fundamentally the same. To me that's the essence of what a true sequel is like, and it's what I would want out of a BG3, because, yes, I just like those games so much that I want more of them. But I also understand that so far all the signs point to BG3 not being that.
Which is fine, I understand that the sensibilities of today's gamers are quite different from mine. But surely it's also completely fine for me or anyone else to react to new information coming out, even if that reaction amounts to nothing more than disgruntled moaning because said information goes against what we would want out of a BG3.
The point being: live and let live. Why tease other people over their desires for BG3 being different from yours? Why try to convince them that your subjective preferences are better than theirs? A lot of this discussion is focused on really unproductive conflict, in my opinion.
Comments
Let's hope we do not get the incredibly bad postures from D:OS 2, though. In character creation they look like their spine will snap any moment, or in case of the female human knight like she is planning to do a pole dance around her sword.
And I want to be able to use portraits for my characters and not zooms of the 3d models.
To be fair, on divinity, armor looks "carnival like" but not in the same degree as wow... What i love about DkS is that even the "fantasy" armor like Havel's armor looks like things that would be effective in the hands of someone that happens to have super strength.
I saw all models that she posted(even the mature one), but found no clue about the Artstyle of BG3. https://www.artstation.com/alenad
Is almost confirmed that the leveling, combat, spell, melee and ranged combat, etc will be completely different(worst probably), but i an still curious about artstyle.
Yeah, agree. Was my prediction too in another thread.
Her outfit doesn't seem very BG-ish. Unless it's just some kind of placeholder? As I said, I'm confused.
eye of the beholder(1990) Had an grid based view and was very D&D like
NWN1/2 has an completely different camera than BG1/2 or IWD1/2 and worked properly. I understand other complains but this i don't agree. So yes, even if the camera become more NWN or Dragon Age like, i don't think that will be bad.
Gotta disagree there, I thought the NWN camera was a nightmare to deal with.
I prefer isometric with fixed camera angle. Not only does it make my life easier, it's also what best facilitates tactical combat.
It has an immersive OTS exploration view and a great tactical view. And it moves between those two so smoothly. Also running in the OTS view feels really good and responsive.
I would be happy if BG3 played like DAO but with D&D rules and 2020 visuals. Origins' only flaws were the MMO like designs e.g. cooldowns and a silly level based equipment grind. But those don't exist in D&D... right Larian?
Two posts of yours full of emotionally based argumentation. Two of mine without. You do the math.
IMO people valorize perspective too much. I prefer first person perspective, but will not avoid play tons of games due the lack of First person. But will not lie, if an game with the same length and depth as P:K comes with Eye of The Beholder camera(1990), i will love more than i love previous D&D game
But even NWN2(worst camera of the D&D games) is an better experience than SCL that tried to ""modernize"" D&D foruma.
That model does look pretty fancy. I have no clue about game resources, but if that is in fact the level of detail of the game engine, how resource/hardware intensive would it be? After all, it is not just a single Lara Croft that needs to be rendered, it's (hopefully) 6 party members, their movement, an unknown number of enemies, spell effects, environments, etc...
The issue of spell effects is of course lessened with TB... but I personally am still wary on that...
subtledoctor posted a comment simply saying that he prefers a different graphical style over super detailed realism when it comes to tactical rpgs. Someone responded with, "Oh, you don't like good graphics?" It was a strawman response that didn't even touch on what the post was saying. This kind of thing has been happening CONSTANTLY across this entire section of the forum. We are very sick of it happening, so yeah, we are a little frayed. You've been gone for awhile, so you haven't seen all this going.
^This. So this. I realize a lot of people in this forum don't care for the DA games, but if BG3 is going to have a "modern" look and feel to it, and I fully expect it surely will, then the DA games are what I'd very strongly prefer it to look and feel like, albeit with D&D 5e rules obviously. Honestly, I very much prefer the look and feel of the DA games than the IE games. <please don't throw stuff at me>
I don't think this is a fair summary at all, given that I (and other people as well) gave a detailed breakdown which changes I would be ok with and others which I think would be very detrimental.
As for "strongly believe it will be an equally great game" I think it is much too early to tell with the details we have.
I think there are very legitimate criticisms that can be made for the D:OS 2 games in terms of the underlying RPG mechanics like itemization, character creation, armor system and skill/attribute system. For a D&D/Baldur Gate successors I feel that getting all those mechanics in great shape is critical.
That would be an interesting experience (personally - I so hope you are right here!). There is BG-1 mod for NWN2, so, anyone interested how BG feels with such camera can prepare himself
On the other hand - Larian has a game engine that works perfectly, already tested (twice), allows multiplaying and design of very detailed world and fits the iconic camera - why would they change anything?
Reasons to be negative about the game
Vincke remembers me a lot of Jay Wilson in the minset "A is the better example of game of his genre, but lets redesign A and put B elements in A" on D3 he brougth a lot of mmoish mechanics into Diablo. In the Vincke, i fear that he will put a lot of D:OS mechanics into BG.
The D20 system worked properly in any game that used it correctly. From medieval fantasy dungeon crawlers to star wars games(kotor 1/2), anyone here thinks that swtor is better than kotor? Swtor has a lot of mmoish mechanics.
I've read all posts in this sub-forum, so do not make the mistake of thinking I've missed it. No one is being/should be attacked for their opinions and neither "side" has exclusiveness over the other. Argumentation about how those opinions are voiced is still valid though.
"So it was that when Baldur’s Gate came out in 1997, Larian Studios wasn’t a household name in the genre. It was an unknown Belgian developer working on an RPG doomed to cancellation – The Lady, the Mage and the Knight. Meanwhile, Bioware was making its name with an RPG that combined the high fantasy freedom of Dungeons & Dragons with the immediacy of real-time strategy.
“I was very… I wouldn’t say jealous,” Larian head Swen Vincke remembers. “But I would’ve liked doing that.”
"This isn’t a Divinity game. The bleak birth of a mind flayer in Baldur’s Gate 3’s teaser trailer was designed specifically to signify a change in tone from the wilfully daft Original Sin. Baldur’s Gate was never short on silly tangents, but took its central story of a world caught up in the sibling rivalry of demigods deadly seriously.
“It’s going to be somewhat darker, more serious,” Vincke says. “But serious topics work much better if there’s a little bit of humour in there, and Dungeons and Dragons is about having fun at the tabletop. So that means there is going to be stuff that will make you smile.”
"As in the original game, your adventure will start outside the grand city of Baldur’s Gate – trading hub, playground of iniquity, magnet for world-ending catastrophe – but eventually lead you into its heart. Baldur’s Gate 1 functioned almost as a sparse open world stitched together by loading screens, but the sequel sensibly cut the map count in favour of fewer, more densely-packed areas, which is the approach Larian is taking too.
“We take snapshots, because we have an adventure we’re going to go and do,” Vincke says. “We’re not going to make it one big open-world city simulation. It’s not that type of game.”
"“If you look at what the Fifth Edition has done, characters like Boo and Minsc are still alive,” Vincke points out. “Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3.”
Who knows the average lifespan of a miniature giant space hamster, anyway?"
https://www.vg247.com/2019/06/19/baldurs-gate-3-will-not-divinity-original-sin-3-another-name/
"I love that title," inXile CEO Brian Fargo told IGN. "You know, both me and [Obsidian CEO] Feargus [Urquhart] were chasing that for years. [Larian CEO] Swen [Vincke] too. All of us, for a decade."
"Feargus had a better inside track than I did and he wasn't able to do it. And then Larian ended up doing it, which was a great choice by the way. It was a great choice. [But] we all tried for it."
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/06/18/obsidian-and-inxile-both-tried-to-get-the-rights-to-baldurs-gate-3-a-e3-2019
So it shows - BGIII by Larian is not something that they wanted to get on a whim. They thought about this for many years and took their steps.
And it's not only Beamdog who approves the choice. As you see, InXile (and possibly Obsidian as well, although it's not written directly) approves that choice as well.
One extra bit: "We put some thought into the plot design, I remember. It's been over 15 years. All I remember is the [player character] was being persecuted. Everything was going bad and they were blaming the protagonist and you had to clear your name." - sounds a bit like the end of Siege of Dragonspear.
Thanks, some quick thoughts.
Little new in here, most is standard company speak. I.e. of course you are going to say you wanted to go this for a long time when picking up an famous RPG series with a big budget. And of course, other studios will congratulate and approve. Game developers switch companies all the time, so why burn bridges without need? So while all this is sensible, I will not put much stock in it in either direction.
On old characters: I hope they do not overuse them, I would prefer a fairly clean break with the past. Cameo is fine, of course.
On BG2 like area focus vs BG1 open world style exploration: this is actually something I commented a bit on in the past. I felt the style of each game was perfect for the game's level range, i.e. low-level party runs into adventures just by turning the next corner. But a high level party needs to seek out appropiately challenging adventures. Even ToB being focus on a single epic-level storyline with few sidequests felt appropiate. So I am not really a fan by starting with BG2 style when we play a new character, but this is definitely only a very minor gripe.
I personally don't want to see a copy/paste, but just stop for a moment and consider how many similarities there are between BG1 and BG2. Are they copies of each other? Clearly not, even though the underlying mechanics and gameplay are fundamentally the same. To me that's the essence of what a true sequel is like, and it's what I would want out of a BG3, because, yes, I just like those games so much that I want more of them. But I also understand that so far all the signs point to BG3 not being that.
Which is fine, I understand that the sensibilities of today's gamers are quite different from mine. But surely it's also completely fine for me or anyone else to react to new information coming out, even if that reaction amounts to nothing more than disgruntled moaning because said information goes against what we would want out of a BG3.
The point being: live and let live. Why tease other people over their desires for BG3 being different from yours? Why try to convince them that your subjective preferences are better than theirs? A lot of this discussion is focused on really unproductive conflict, in my opinion.