Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What was purpose of Early Acess?

Yes ...
But on both sides.

One group acusing Larian of betrayal and ignorance ...
Another reacting to those who are only frustrated from lack of communication with claiming that they shouldnt expect that Larian will do anything and everything they want ...

I detect same levels of toxicity.

The full game is two weeks away. The rules we know about for the full release will not likely drastically change at this point but some minor balancing is still to be expected...some of the races that appear to be lacking, those may still receive some extra perks before launch. But it is not realistic to expect everything one may dislike to be changed to one's liking...that's just not likely to happen at any point. And don't get me wrong I am not happy with every balancing decision made(particularly the multiclassing system and the removal of minimum requirements for multiclassing to name a couple). But it's time to make peace with the changes, the game will be incredibly good regardless, will offer more player agency over the story than any other game ever made, and ultimately it should still be incredibly good. Definitely not worth letting a few gripes sour the experience and Larian certainly don't deserve the abuse of being accused of being intentionally deceptive, manipulative, greedy, etc. The passion they put into this game is unparalleled and every change they made, whether we like it or hate it, whether we understand why or not, they did because they truly believed that is what is best for the game. With a game as huge and complex, it is inevitable that every player will have a few gripes here there.

Typical hard core d&d “purist’s” are the reason half of these games can’t get off the ground ..
You have to compromise or stick to table top - the other 90% of us will enjoy this take on d&d and enjoy the heck out of it.

It reminds me in some ways of the arena shooter genre. Fans of the genre absolutely refuse to play anything that isn't a 1:1 replica of Quake 3. Every time a game is trying to pander to that elusive crowd, the game dies at a record speed. Quake champion? Dead. Toxikk? Dead. Splitgate? Dead. Shootmania? Dead. And I probably forgot a lot more. Ironically the closest to an arena shooter we got are probably games in the hero shooter genre, like Overwatch, because they understood that players expectations have changed since 1999.

It would be a good idea to return to this thread in a few months from now, and determine if there is a clear difference in quality between act 1 and the ensuing acts. If act 1 is found to be better than the rest, that could then be attributed to player involvement in EA. I do hope that BG3 will not slump like Game of Thrones.

People asking for 5e implementations in a 5e-game are the problem? Like asking for reactions has made the game worse? It was just such a minor thing that a lot of abilities and spells stopped being useful and needed a complete rework and rebalance because they are based of reaction-mechanics?

Asking for no surface damage on cantrips is what holds 5e games back? Because something that highly affected concentration spells which is a major part of the system BG3 itself uses and brought the damage out of whack made the game less appealing for the casuals and non 5e fans? As making half the spells (which affected any control or buff build) was bad for the players? Or cantrips out-damaging leveled spells was good?

Shove and Throw being more powerful than any class ability or spell to the degree that level 1 characters could kill cambions, mindflayers and several others in one encounter using nothing else (including armor) is what makes this game better than regular 5e? Asking for those to be readjusted hold 5e games back?



I'm not a 5e purist - to be honest I'm not even a D&D-rules fan, but when I see what 'homebrew' Larian is doing I definitely prefer 5e as it is a coherent system (with weaknesses/flaws). If Larian had improved on 5e I wouldn't complain at all. To me though they have shown time and time again that they don't understand how 5e systems interact while they force what they think its funny in there. Sorry, if we 'purist' don't agree with their changes. But I think asking a studio to re-do the balancing on 600 abilities and spells including some 40 subclasses and that over 12 levels while actually implementing the stuff into the game is a bit much for 3-5 years of development. Yet that is what they forced themselves to do based on their 'small' homebrew changes to the core functionalities of how the system works that they supposedly wanted to use. These changes were also not those that didn't transfer from TT to videogames, but deliberate decisions by Larian no one forced them to.

Those complaints were less about being true 5e and more about making sure the options the player have are balanced and thus actual options. I know its horrible of us not trusting Larian to have done a great job and you 90% will like it because it couldn't have been done better.

There are two big problems with asking for a more pure 5e experience: 1) pure 5e just doesn't work in single player videogame form. Most who will play the game will be people who never played D&D and have no idea what they are doing but unlike playing at a proper D&D table there is nobody there to explain why your character doesn't work or what you're doing wrong. Even in multiplayer most new player will play with other who are similarly new to D&D and don't know what they are doing. A pure D&D 5e in videogame form kills the game for most new players, most leave early, dissatisfied, and don't mention the game again, and if brought up they will say it is bad...this hurts the game big time in the long run. Player retention and good word of mouth are key to games succeeding and lack thereof kills games.

And then 2) if you know anything about D&D then you know the Dungeon Master has total and absolute control over the rules and is free to change the rules as he sees fit. So respect the DM(Larian).

That's why I pointed out the examples. (The majority of) People have not been asking for 100% 5e, but specific things.

Also while the DM has the option to ignore the rules and do all the homebrew they love, there is still a social contract behind each playing group. If only the DM has fun with their homebrew usually the next session will be played by them and their teddy bears sitting around the table, while the players will be doing something else.

So please, lets not oversimplify the matter. Larian can do changes and players can decide not to buy. For us who joined the EA we put trust into Larian (and that is our own personal problem not Larian's). I've learned my lesson for myself and I know that Larian isn't a DM I would play with and I probably won't when it comes to future games. I will know it for the next time and that's fine. No drama. What Larian learns from this EA and the release will be up to them.

People can ask for any specific things they want...but Larian doesn't have to oblige...at all. They will do what they believe is best for the game full stop.

And again, a D&D videogame requires a lot more tinkering with the rules than a regular game table because sticking too close to the tabletop rules does not work and will kill the game.

There is literally no over justification, that is just how it is. And Larian will do what they see as necessary.

Either way, the rules will not change drastically anymore at this point...the game is coming out in two weeks.

...and I did acknowledge all of that. I just challenged the notion that the '5e-purist' are the problem people before my post claimed them to be - which is an oversimplification and just throwing dirt on anyone critizing the game's mechanics/rules.

Also - none of the examples I made demanded changes to the mechanics because of the transition of medium used. As we see even Larian managed to implement them (see reactions, action instead of bonus action for sneak) or chose deliberately to ignore feedback (action cost for jump/shove, how throw is balanced). So I don't see any value in that argument used in these cases - its just again throwing everything in the same bin to bolster the claim '5e-purist are unreasonable/have crazy expectations'. I am utterly aware that video games have different limitations, strengths and weaknesses - but using it as an excuse/argument on every topic is just 'questionable' to not use a different word.

Hey folks, just a reminder that it's of course totally okay for everyone to share their own views and opinions here, but each of us should be wary of repeating ourselves and going round in circles. This is a topic where it's clear we are just not all going to agree, so continuing to back and forth on the same points is unfortunately unlikely to do anything other than get a bit frustrating for everyone whether they're involved in the discussion or not.

I'll just ask everyone to be conscious of when they've made their own position clear, and when it's time to agree to disagree.

I hear you loud and clear. I am absolutely mad at myself and not Larian. I really should have done a better wealth of research on EA in general and even more so on Larian's track record with it. Reading that back it does appear that I'm angry at Larian for not listening to forum feedback from players like myself and Kendaric. I'm not. That's why I gave them those kudos. They knew exactly what they were doing from the jump, and I, unfortunately, bought in on a bad premise. I have no one to blame but myself, for sure. Sorry if that read as a cantankerous get off my lawn. I definitely allowed more emotional content to bleed through than I should have.

Bottom line= Early Access players were used.

We are mere cogs.

In an ideal world, what would have happened with early access?

--in your opinion, I mean. I'm curious.

The many peeps that requested the ability to create a custom party would have been listed to....as just one example.

fwiw if you take on the development of a D&D crpg and a relevant part of the core fanbase of the franchise feels let down, disillusioned, bitter, not heard or is just not fully satisfied with the outcome, then as a company you failed in what is not the least important aspect of the game. Do it better next time, Larian.

(This is coming from someone who doesn't know much about D&D and believes, the fact we're getting BG3 as it has been presented at the last PFH is close to a wonder, given all the things that need to come together to make this happen. The recent resignation of Niara made me think though, so I wanted to get this out.)

How dare you be so reasonable! But, Yeah, I agree, this speculation stuff could count as a form of self-harm. I know people won't stop, but it would probably be better if we did. That includes me.

Ha! Omg, the level of failure required to be as bad as season 8 of GoT - I just don't see it.

I'd rephrase that along the lines of "some EA players feel used."

It's definitely not a universal sentiment

Some Cogs are very happy doing what they do...can't argue that.

Define "relevant part" and "core" fanbase though. Most d&d players arnt rules purists. Certainly not 5e rules purists.

In reality you are likely looking at a few hundred or less people, far less than the new customers the changes win over.

Solasta peaked at what 8 k players? Rules purists are still a miniscule faction of that group.

Heck even if larian lost all 8k of these players they still earned more mainstream players out of it.

When your community is so small you can't expect big budget megagames to cater exclusivly to you.