I agree with DOS 2 is better than BG3.
But I dont hate BG3, its for mature audiences tho for sure (BG3).

Depends on what you hated about BG3 I suppose. I struggle to replay it at all because I get so many ideas of what kind of characters I want to play that I end up not being able to pick one and stick with it, so I end up restarting over and over until I move onto something else.

Mechanically, they made quite a few major improvements such as the ability to push enemies, not just through the push action but also through spell effects and explosions. This adds a huge amount of fun and helpful strategies to combat. Mix in the dialed down but refined surface system and the game is better than DOS2 in many ways.

Some people might hate on the game for its stances on political stuff like inclusivity or heavy push on romance/sexuality, but that doesn’t really bother me much. I might not support the LGBT concept, but I didn’t feel like they over did it on NPC relationships to such a ridiculous degree that it got annoying.

I can’t really say that I hate BG3, though it’s still sitting on less than 20% of the playtime I’ve put into DOS2 so I suppose I can’t say I like it as much either. It’s meant for a different audience though, not just their own fans coming from Divinity. Mix that with the restrictions they have to follow because it’s D&D, it’s no real surprise that some players of Divinity don’t like it as much. However, it did put them on the map for hundreds of thousands of players that didn’t know of Larian before and should have given them the financial success to finally break free of their problem with running out of budget for their new games.

I played this game first, but I didn't originally like it. Then I bought BG3, but I couldn't really get into it, either. Eventually, I gave D:OS2 another chance, and so far, it's been a lot of fun. I'm currently on level 14 in Reaper's Coast.

If I wanted to compare the two games, I'd say they're similar in a lot of ways, but the mechanics make a major difference. The visuals and UI have received a boost in BG3, and the technical presentation of BG3 is top notch. I also slightly prefer the DnD-based character growth system, even though the open character build system and flexible respec system in D:OS2 is also a lot of fun. Both games have great voice acting and music, though I'd say BG3 has a slight edge here. It's hard to rate the story when I haven't finished either of the games.

As for where D:OS2 has the advantage, I prefer the characters in D:OS2. I've enjoyed pretty much all of the playable characters in D:OS2. Too bad you can only have 4 of them in the party, and there's no character switching (after Fort Joy, at least). While you can freely switch party members in BG3, so far I've only liked Karlach's character. I also greatly dislike BG3's DnD-based dice-throwing mechanics, which I didn't enjoy in Pathfinder games, either. D:OS2 is much less RNG-based. I also thought D:OS2 had a much better balanced difficulty curve. So far, the game has been getting progressively harder, with the biggest difficulty spike being on level 10-12. BG3 has an "inverse difficulty curve". That is, the early game is the hardest, when your characters have only one action, their stats are weak, and they miss most of their attacks. The game picks up a lot on level 5, when your characters gain their 2nd action, and start getting better stats. The battles are more fast-paced in D:OS2, thanks to having up to 6 AP right from the beginning.

In summary, the advantages of both games:
D:OS2: characters, combat, difficulty curve.
BG3: visuals, UI, DnD-ish growth system.

Originally posted by Chaoslink:

Depends on what you hated about BG3 I suppose. I struggle to replay it at all because I get so many ideas of what kind of characters I want to play that I end up not being able to pick one and stick with it, so I end up restarting over and over until I move onto something else.

Mechanically, they made quite a few major improvements such as the ability to push enemies, not just through the push action but also through spell effects and explosions. This adds a huge amount of fun and helpful strategies to combat. Mix in the dialed down but refined surface system and the game is better than DOS2 in many ways.

Some people might hate on the game for its stances on political stuff like inclusivity or heavy push on romance/sexuality, but that doesn’t really bother me much. I might not support the LGBT concept, but I didn’t feel like they over did it on NPC relationships to such a ridiculous degree that it got annoying.

I can’t really say that I hate BG3, though it’s still sitting on less than 20% of the playtime I’ve put into DOS2 so I suppose I can’t say I like it as much either. It’s meant for a different audience though, not just their own fans coming from Divinity. Mix that with the restrictions they have to follow because it’s D&D, it’s no real surprise that some players of Divinity don’t like it as much. However, it did put them on the map for hundreds of thousands of players that didn’t know of Larian before and should have given them the financial success to finally break free of their problem with running out of budget for their new games.

I absolutely hated how thirsty every character was. I didn't want to have to deal with fake relationships that wind up forcing me to bang people. I just wanted to play a game. I hated the 5e system but mostly i hated it because it felt like a DOS2 clone.

Originally posted by Serafie1999AD:

I played this game first, but I didn't originally like it. Then I bought BG3, but I couldn't really get into it, either. Eventually, I gave D:OS2 another chance, and so far, it's been a lot of fun. I'm currently on level 14 in Reaper's Coast.

If I wanted to compare the two games, I'd say they're similar in a lot of ways, but the mechanics make a major difference. The visuals and UI have received a boost in BG3, and the technical presentation of BG3 is top notch. I also slightly prefer the DnD-based character growth system, even though the open character build system and flexible respec system in D:OS2 is also a lot of fun. Both games have great voice acting and music, though I'd say BG3 has a slight edge here. It's hard to rate the story when I haven't finished either of the games.

As for where D:OS2 has the advantage, I prefer the characters in D:OS2. I've enjoyed pretty much all of the playable characters in D:OS2. Too bad you can only have 4 of them in the party, and there's no character switching (after Fort Joy, at least). While you can freely switch party members in BG3, so far I've only liked Karlach's character. I also greatly dislike BG3's DnD-based dice-throwing mechanics, which I didn't enjoy in Pathfinder games, either. D:OS2 is much less RNG-based. I also thought D:OS2 had a much better balanced difficulty curve. So far, the game has been getting progressively harder, with the biggest difficulty spike being on level 10-12. BG3 has an "inverse difficulty curve". That is, the early game is the hardest, when your characters have only one action, their stats are weak, and they miss most of their attacks. The game picks up a lot on level 5, when your characters gain their 2nd action, and start getting better stats. The battles are more fast-paced in D:OS2, thanks to having up to 6 AP right from the beginning.

In summary, the advantages of both games:
D:OS2: characters, combat, difficulty curve.
BG3: visuals, UI, DnD-ish growth system.

The characters are so much better in DOS2. BG3 uses the same template for their characters that they did for DOS2. It always felt like BG3 was just a big rip off of DOS2. But a bad rip off of DOS2, not a good one.

i mean you cannot compare those game directly.. one is DnD based and no action point system and halfway-fixed Character Traits ... DoS is not even slightly going in that direction.
The mechanics are similair but not same..
also people tend to forget that Dos2 is an old game. BG3 is pretty new. Means better UI better graphic and they had more money to spend. Also they did learn from the mistakes from all previuse Divinity versions and Dos 1 + 2. They could get some very good insight what the players like through mods.. all that knowglede went into BG3.

so comparing those games is nonsense..
i did not like BG3 either. its not my playstile. too less action/adrenalin/excitement. i gave it back and watched a couple Youtube vids and could not get along with it. not mine.

Welp better stop making comparisons everybody BOT says it's nonsense.

Originally posted by BOT:

i mean you cannot compare those game directly.. one is DnD based and no action point system and halfway-fixed Character Traits ... DoS is not even slightly going in that direction.
The mechanics are similair but not same..
also people tend to forget that Dos2 is an old game. BG3 is pretty new. Means better UI better graphic and they had more money to spend. Also they did learn from the mistakes from all previuse Divinity versions and Dos 1 + 2. They could get some very good insight what the players like through mods.. all that knowglede went into BG3.

so comparing those games is nonsense..
i did not like BG3 either. its not my playstile. too less action/adrenalin/excitement. i gave it back and watched a couple Youtube vids and could not get along with it. not mine.

Outside of the systems, the games play identically to one another. I don't think 5e works well as a RPG game system. Too boring and they have to give enemies extra attacks because it was too easy etc.

The fact that in DOS2 and BG3 you wake up on a beach, is quite telling.

Originally posted by ARCHION:

Originally posted by Chaoslink:

Depends on what you hated about BG3 I suppose. I struggle to replay it at all because I get so many ideas of what kind of characters I want to play that I end up not being able to pick one and stick with it, so I end up restarting over and over until I move onto something else.

Mechanically, they made quite a few major improvements such as the ability to push enemies, not just through the push action but also through spell effects and explosions. This adds a huge amount of fun and helpful strategies to combat. Mix in the dialed down but refined surface system and the game is better than DOS2 in many ways.

Some people might hate on the game for its stances on political stuff like inclusivity or heavy push on romance/sexuality, but that doesn’t really bother me much. I might not support the LGBT concept, but I didn’t feel like they over did it on NPC relationships to such a ridiculous degree that it got annoying.

I can’t really say that I hate BG3, though it’s still sitting on less than 20% of the playtime I’ve put into DOS2 so I suppose I can’t say I like it as much either. It’s meant for a different audience though, not just their own fans coming from Divinity. Mix that with the restrictions they have to follow because it’s D&D, it’s no real surprise that some players of Divinity don’t like it as much. However, it did put them on the map for hundreds of thousands of players that didn’t know of Larian before and should have given them the financial success to finally break free of their problem with running out of budget for their new games.

I absolutely hated how thirsty every character was. I didn't want to have to deal with fake relationships that wind up forcing me to bang people. I just wanted to play a game. I hated the 5e system but mostly i hated it because it felt like a DOS2 clone.

This is exactly why I disliked BG3. I couldn't stand the sexual aggression that all the characters had. Sexual humor and romance can be fun as it's been done many times in DnD games before, but in BG3 it felt forced on you. There was no nuance.

Divinity for combat, BG for characters

Originally posted by Malagon:

Originally posted by ARCHION:

I absolutely hated how thirsty every character was. I didn't want to have to deal with fake relationships that wind up forcing me to bang people. I just wanted to play a game. I hated the 5e system but mostly i hated it because it felt like a DOS2 clone.

This is exactly why I disliked BG3. I couldn't stand the sexual aggression that all the characters had. Sexual humor and romance can be fun as it's been done many times in DnD games before, but in BG3 it felt forced on you. There was no nuance.

Apparently this can be remedied by mods, such as only having straight characters coming on to you and not all the forced ♥♥♥♥ stuff. Haven't played it myself tho.

I actually think both are not that amazing as RPG.
They are fun, but not amazing.
Pillars of Eternity (1 and 2, because 2 is a direct sequel and I love to be able to import my character/save into the sequel) is a better RPG for a lot of reason but the main one is that the focus is not just on combat but also on story and relationship (not just romantic) that actually make sense to me.
I also enjoy the combat more since it is real time with pause with the ability to program some automatic actions (they added the turn based combat in Pillars 2 since a lot of people requested it but I think people just don't understand the system and wanted something familiar... after all real time with pause if you don't spend some time learning the AI tools can be confusing).
But the most fun part for me was just exploring the world. In both Pillars there are some good things that Divinity is missing like the ability to speed up time during travel, the ability to sneak around to avoid combat and still gain experience (so that the game is actually rewarding if you sneak around) and least but not least in both Pillars there are part to explore just to explore... in Pillars 2 there are island that you can name.

Divinity combat system is good there are some good interactions that are missing from pillars game, like the ability to swap terrains to get the lava where you want. Divinity 1 actually got an interesting story, not good like both Pillars, but still not really bad (while Divinity 2 don't have a good story at all, it's just pure fun walking around to the next joke).

I think Larian games are good turn based combat RPG... I kind of game where you don't really need to remember the story, just smash things with some tactics and have fun breaking the game. That's true even in BG3. They share a lot with Neverwinter Nights.

While Pillars of Eternity is more like the old school BG 1 and 2 and Planescape Torment and Disco Elysium... the combat is good but not the focus of the game. Role playing and having fun with dialog options is more important

yep

I don't think BG3 is a bad game but definitely a huge step back from DOS2 in terms of gameplay. That's just what happens when they try to follow the dnd bs as closely as possible.

story was kinda whatever in both games but the companions in DOS2 are also much better and have better stories(especially lohse and sebille) imo

It is funny to read some posts, and know what BG3 history is.
I had the early early access of BG3, and at first, it was practically DOS 2 with the BG3 Characters and Cinematics. The first few iterations of BG3 had even the UI of DOS2 and the spells were merely themed as DnD ones, but still worked just like DOS2 ones would.

It was after a couple updates that they changed the UI and made the two games look different, but throughout the whole early access it was almost the same overall code and just the UI and aesthetics making the difference. To this day a whole lot of things in BG3 still work like DOS2, and they do not work as DnD translation to computer would.

It is funny to hear someone say the main difference is "mechanics", because that is what is really very similar. You see, mechanics of a game is one thing, the values and effects of spells another. It is like saying the exact same car in a different color, with those leather fixtures and a rear spoiler added differ from the original car in the mechanics.

I think it's funny everytime I see one of these "BG3 vs DOS 2" posts because your comparing apples to apples

Both of these apples taste absolutely amazing and nothing is stopping you from eating both of these apples or only one of them