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

Not quite, there is also high ground advantage, cantrips surfaces, XP for pacifism choices, swarm AI, Halsin as a companion, and reaction if you count that as a feedback.

1. Even if I never play BG3 again, I have more than gotten my money's worth already, many times over.

2. There's more we don't know than we do. I'm a fan of waiting to see what the game looks like on release.

The only thing I'm particularly annoyed by is the changes to racial attributes. Some of the other stuff annoys me, but that just completely threw off my plans for the game. I don't plan to play a human, shield dwarf or half-elf until mods come out to revert the changes they have received, despite my original plan being to play a half-drow sorcerer. Of course, Larian is a company known for listening to feedback and providing options, so perhaps they'll add a toggle to switch back to the PHB racials, or at least a toggle for those races heavily affected by the changes.

I mean I hate to burst your bubble here, but Larian are unlikely to add that toggle. You have to understand what such a 'toggle' would do. It would have to change, on the fly, the character sheet of half elves to what they are in EA. And it would have to do it for PS5 and Xbox too. It's clear they had a design philosophy here which was to standardise and simplify character creation, primarily for all the non DnD newbs.

Furthermore if you would want the rules for companions and maybe npcs, they would all have to change. And it would have to be multiplayer compatible ie you couldn't have one player facing the same enemy with completely different stats.


Without any inside knowledge, I think their attitude here might be if this can be done through mods, that's the best way


Good news it is probably very very likely to be one of the first mods for the game, so there's that. I can't see you having to wait too long for this one

You're correct, but one can hope. What may be easier is simply adding special rules for humans, half-elves and shield dwarfs so that they have extra attribute points to allocate. I'd prefer the full old system be returned, but that at least would allow me to allocate the points in a way that matches the old system for all of the races and doesn't leave them with an attribute deficit. If that isn't implemented, then I'm just going to play a race that isn't affected by this change until mods come out to fix it.

This is exactly how I feel as well. I 100% regret purchasing the game in early access, because my voice never mattered, and the game that is about to be released "into the wild" is nothing like the game I was hoping to play. I'm sure I'll play the game, because I paid for it three years ago, and because I'll want some kind of return for my money. I might even actually enjoy parts of it. Even so, just like you say Kendaric, had I known then what the actual game would be upon release, I would not have thrown my money away on it. Kudos to Larian on that though, because I firmly believe that most of the people who bought early in the early access were moderate to heavy D&D gamers either Tabletop or CRPG or both, and Larian leveraged that audience to help them make the game they wanted all along. Way to tell an already interested audience that you were going to make the game they wanted, just so you could get that early seed money and then ignore everything they had to say. Shrewd business planning.

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I get you are angry at yourself, but Larian never did promise to take anything we had to say into consideration. They wanted to see how we play the game, it was clearly stated and it's nobody's fault people can't be bothered to read what the EA entailed.

I know you feel robbed, but nobody coerced you into this.

Don't look at me, I bought it in EA the instant it was announced and have never regretted it. I got basically the exact game I wanted, and am really glad of the stat changes. Tbh, honestly a lot of the early buyers of EA likely came from the same place I did-DOS2. The D&D aspect of it was actually a turn off, but I bought it because Larian. I'm definitely not alone. They're making decisions based on what's going to have the most broad appeal, and I don't see that as a bad thing. Particularly as it'll get more casual players into the game and just generally require less D&D knowledge for people to play it.

I suspect only Larian could truly answer that. I suspect they are more interested in us players interact with the game (what NPCs they talk to, what paths they take, what items they find, pick up and use, does UI work the way they expect, are there options or features that player’s miss?) If than what we have to say. Some of it seemed to be useful and impacted the game but for the most part we are Guinea pigs.

It does feel like there were a lot of fairly drastic changes made at the last minute. I don't really mind a lot of this stuff, like I've never used a crossbow even in 5e and the sorts but I can see how some of this stuff might be annoying to some degree. But in general I feel like Larian wanted to take some of the difficulty edge off the 5e rules because D&D is a brutally difficult game that largely works because D&D is largely played at a table with other people who can help you out if you make a catastrophically inept character and will all plan what a balanced party should look like with a healer, a tank, etc. But BG3 will be played by a lot of people who have no idea about D&D and most of those will play single player. But all in all I feel like they struck a good balance at making the game approachable while still remaining largely D&D.

I think this is mentioned upthread, but it bears repeating, the financial reasons for running a long EA are totally valid. These things are not cheap efforts, and running an EA like a kickstarter is great way to augment other funding sources. (Provided you'll be able to deliver)

I think it's unfortunate that Larian weren't more clear about their intentions for EA, and as a result, a lot of us had unrealistic expectations.

But I would absolutely do it again. Playing EA has been a blast, and I don't regret participating even a little. I just had to recalibrate my expectations

The issue is that none of these recent rule changes/taking away options will sell even a single copy. Other things will push sales up including you know what. Even the casual will see dnd/from the creators of dos/the bg name and go from there. They're not gonna really pay attention to these stat changes.. so who are these changes for? Not the hardcore. Not the 'fake casual'? Casual players aren't gonna be interested a 100 hour turn based rpg to begin with. The rule changes doesn't change that. So, why changes? And, why not make them optional?

The stat rule changes use the exact same system that will launch when Wizards of the Coast reprints the Player's Handbook in 2024 which they are referring to as 5e(2024)

The change was likely negotiated between WotC and Larian.

Having Shadowheart change from a companion that didn't just roll her eyes like a 15 year old daughter that hates her dad was worth it imho. I'll take what I can get.

If it makes anyone feel better, according to some scathing Glassdoor reviews, Larian also has trouble listening to feedback within its own company.

All of this is unsurprising if you followed DOS2 development. "Larian EA" is a mislabeling at best and an outright marketing lie at worst - what they provide as "early access" is a kickstarter with a demo. Feedback outside of the demo itself is nonexistent because no one but Larian has access to it, and the idea that feedback is for the game in general as opposed to the systems specifically within the demo (the "source system" in DOS2 comes to mind as a prime example of this - most of it, and most of its balance, was released without any player feedback whatsoever). This is also something many suspected was the cause for the writing/content quality declining - sometimes precipitously - in DOS2 after Fort Joy: Fort Joy was the extent of the feedback they got about the writing prior to release, and the rest was entirely internal, without a vast array of playtesting and player suggestions to take into consideration. I don't know if DOS1 had similar complaints, as I'm less familiar with the meta surrounding its community.

I'd hoped Larian had finally figured out what early access actually is, but I suspect they know and they're just... profitably dishonest about what it is they have actually released thus far. Creating the illusion of feedback can help create player investment in the game before it releases, and you can just lampshade the lack of response to feedback or the lack of any potential feedback for what wasn't in the demo as "we just can't please 'em all". Unfortunately, this invites portions of your community to dismiss any feedback they disagree with by mischaracterizing anyone giving it as "entitled." I've been playing games with forums for a long time and I genuinely can't recall a single instance of the "you just want your feedback to be listened to and other feedback ignored" accusation being remotely based in fact - except occasionally when leveled as a response to the first person tossing out the accusation. I can recall quite a few examples where it manifested as a sort of projection from people with their own entitled mindset of "I got/I expect to get the system I wanted, so I don't want them to listen to any feedback that might change it, so anyone who disagrees is entitled and must be dismissed."

There's also the more insidious angle of saying that the main purpose is to respond to player feedback in the starter area to put it up to a high standard while skimping on everything afterwards so that initial reviews are positive after release and by the time the flaws are apparent players are too deeply invested to acknowledge them or too disinterested to rewrite their reviews to include them
There is some hope I have that Larian will be more open to post-launch changes than I recall them being in DOS2, especially since the very obvious transition from content that had a community feedback effort and content that didn't was one of the few major criticisms leveled at a game as well-liked (even by those complaining) as DOS2. In that sense, I suspect that the early post-launch period will be, for BG3, more like an actual early access (or, probably more accurately, a genuine "open beta"). Remember, early access isn't a level of polish or quantity of bugs (even if it's often associated with little of the former and much of the latter) - it's a type of content release with high flexibility. If Larian continues to respond to community feedback after launch and make popularly requested changes while continuing to polish the experience, then they've effectively moved from a kickstarter with a demo to an early access.

Unfortunately, given what I know about the industry, narrative tends to be ossified at release for mundane organizational reasons. Management will basically never authorize new VA work and new art assets after whatever they decide to call "release", because these are done generally by contractors who are dropped shortly after release. The only common exceptions are "new releases" like DLCs, for which new contracts are drawn. Few if any studios have in-house capability to improve the writing once the performance is recorded and the art assets given, though more have in-house art asset creation ability than in-house VA, especially if the game is remotely multilingual. I sincerely hope that Larian writers paid close attention to the feedback that it was too late to act on when DOS2 released, and applied whatever lessons they could learn from that to the writing they did without player feedback in BG3.

True, but I genuinely miss her loudly requesting divine assistance to beat down a door that only opens from the other side the first time you met after the nautiloid crash. So-dumb-heart, my beloved.

Letting every race get 17 in a main stat will definitely help sell copies

This whole take is extremely disingenuous. No matter how upset you may feel about some of the changes they did, listening is not the same thing as doing whatever you wish. They listened carefully to all feedback, and disagreed with some of it, which they have a right to do. Listening to what players say does not oblige them to do anything. And ultimately Divinity Original Sin 2 was a huge success for Larian both in terms of sales, player reception, and critic reception. Overwhelmingly most people loved the game. There really is no need for this kind of talk that comes across as more bitter than constructive. Suggesting they falsely marketed the game, there is no need for that.

You also seem to misunderstand what early access is. Early Access is a very early and very rough first version of a part of the game. Everything there is subject to change. And while they may have changed some of the core rules and some mechanics at the end that's part of the final balancing of the game before release, they never lied about anything. And in the final version of the game over 90% of what you saw in early access will still be there but better and more polished even if some of the balance changes weren't to your liking. But just as a DM has total power over the rules at a D&D table so do Larian over BG3. You can disagree with the DM but he has the final say.

Ultimately BG3, just as Divinity Original Sin 2 before it, will very likely be an overwhelmingly loved game if the very positive overall ratings on Steam are any indication.

I mean Darth_Trethon more or less nails it in his reply to this, but I would like to add a few things:

Nobody, I mean NOBODY, in their right mind expects to play the later acts of a narrative based story in EA. I mean that's just crazy. Of course we're only going to get Act 1, you do know that right?

One thing really stands out. Do you think feedback in EA should extend to story? Half the people who complain about bad writing on here seem to think not liking a character equals bad writing. Are you really suggesting that they should be getting some input into the narrative?

You say you know the industry, but I'm not sure you do. Narrative doesn't ossify on release for mundane organisational reasons, it ossifies because the story is told. The dev either nailed the story or screwed it up, but what's done is done. It's their story to tell and they either did it well or not. Despite the crazy petitions, even ME3 knew that. Maybe a slight change, but when the story is done , it's done. They can tinker with elements, but if you think say Astarion's story turned out unpopular, the fact they wouldn't change it is down to contracts, I just don't think you're as informed on this as I think you are.

Despite that, your main point is probably one of the main criticisms of DoS2, but it's unfortunately down to the fact that they can really only offer Act 1, and not the rather suspicious motives you seem to make it out to be.

The only thing I'd say is the one person we know so far who has played Act 2 says the narrative steps up quite considerably and this was someone who had criticisms of Act 1. Plus one of their lead writers spent the last 6 months on the ending alone. So that gives me hope.

Other than, I just think you really don't get what EA is about on quite a core level, sorry