Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Request for Larian Q&A with this Forum Community

Most if not all of us registered to this forum have paid for EA, and are passionate supporters of the game. We play it a lot, and have enough interest in it that we have taken the time to register with this forum in the hopes of providing feedback that will lead to a the best possible end product. We've all been very patient despite the many delays and lengthening EA time frame and the natural frustrations involved with playing with an incomplete work in progress. The vast majority of feedback here is positive and presented in the best spirit possible. Some issues have been addressed others linger.

Whilst Larian has communicated through media interviews and the PFH productions released with each Patch there has not exactly been a lot of direct engagement by the developer in their very own forum, which I find a bit odd, and I know is a source of frustration to many others. Most of what is happening with the title remains shrouded in mystery which leads to a lot of speculation both positive and cynical. There are many issues with the game that are discussed here in the forum at great length. Some notable examples include Party size, both short and long rest mechanic, Reactions, the "Chain" movement mechanic, Shove as a bonus action with exaggerated physics, day/night lighting. As well there is a lack of clarity as to where we are in the development time line and a reasonable estimate as to when we can expect the final product we have already paid for.

In short many (most? all?) of us on this forum have lent Larian a significant amount of our time (and some actual $$$$) in an effort to aid in their development of this game of which we love/like to varying degrees and remain intensely interested in.

Therefore I think this Forum deserves to hear some answers directly from the Development team in regards to at least some of these significant questions. The Community is generally populated by reasonable people fully cognizant of the pressures and resource limitations Larian faces. We understand it is a business with a bottom line, we all know compromises must be made, that perfection is unrealistic, and that people can have differing views on what is "doable".

Direct answers that could once and for all end the debate on at least some of these issues would I think be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of this forum. Answers that can only come from the development team themselves. Spare us the need to endlessly debate reactions if they are just not going to be changed. If Party size is stuck at 4 so be it, but please let us know now so we can focus on other things. If you are working on the Rest system let us know that discussing this is not a continuing waste of our time (which after all is worth something).

So perhaps the developers could agree to some format within the forum to allow for a Q&A session to cover some of the larger questions that occupy this forum.



Mostly this is a request for respect that I believe is reasonably due to those of us who have paid for and have in good faith participated here in the spirit of helping the developers in their project. Don't we at least deserve that?

+1. I'd love to hear what Larian thinks of reactions and rest systems

It would be hard for me not to generally and broadly agree with a request for better communication and community engagement from Larian.

I have requested this as well in the past, with slightly different arguments (mostly, not resorting to the argument "we paid full price, we could be given more communication at that price").

But as I was saying more recently :


I would still be very happy to see Larian change their communication policy, and I would be very interested if one day we get to hear why they thought that going in with such a minimal communication was a good idea. But I don't entertain too high hopes of that happening.

All this being said, some things might, perhaps, potentially, change. We were told by Larian recently that we could expect community manager news over the summer. So who knows ? On the other hand, we were also told in the past that we'd hear some detail about how they process & parse feedback and data they get through talking with us, and the telemetry they have in the game. This never happened. So, again, who knows ? It could happen, it could not.


p.s. Also of note, perhaps, the idea of an AMA session is popular on Reddit. I'll try to find the links later, but I've seen it come up a couple of times.

Lovely idea but I can't ever see it happening. For reasons only known to themselves their communication has been a series of announcements several months apart, rather than a 2-way dialogue. I find this approach quite arrogant to be honest and it seems they are more concerned with patting themselves on the back, highlighting fan art and memes rather than responding to some valid but perhaps uncomfortable questions/feedback.

It must be around a year ago they promised the community some sort of insight in how they respond to feedback and the decision making around it but it never happened.

I too agree it's a great idea and should happen. But I'm quite confident it won't, because people on this forum aren't Larian's target audience and we don't matter much.

Personally I bought the game because of my faith in Larian, as Divinity Original Sin 2 was mind-blowingly amazing to me and because I really really badly wanted to play Baldur's Gate 3 ^^

I do not feel like I'm owed anything from them. I am participating in Early Access, providing feedback and offering suggestions on what could improve. Whether they wish to do something with my feedback or not, it's up to them. To me it doesn't matter whether they take my feedback or not. Would it be nice? Yes. Wil I be bothered if they don't? No. Can the game be improved? Absolutely. Will it be crap if it doesn't? No. Because it is their game, their vision. And I'm sure whatever they do, Baldur's Gate 3 will be a phenomenal experience because I'm already enjoying myself so much with Early Access.

As a modder I got to experience first hand the intense surge of relentless feedbacks, requests, ideas and even outright demands from people who use my mods. When I got into modding I was openly communicating with everyone, but as time went by, this changed drastically. Because once you acknowledge a single person, everyone suddenly feels like they deserve the same. And no matter what you say, you will always be a hero and a villain to one and the other.

I find it completely understandable why they wouldn't want to communicate, because you'd have to deal with:

• the hardcore DnD fanbase that constantly keeps bringing up "DnD this, DnD that"
• the incredibly passionate and highly critical BG1 and 2 fanbase that want a true sequel and constantly compare BG3 to previous games
• the Larian fanbase who just enjoy things and want a good game

I wholeheartedly respect the passion of all three of these communities, but realistically speaking how do you communicate with people who wish to turn BG3 into BG1 and 2? How do you communicate with DnD enthusiasts who nitpick about every adjustment that doesn't follow DnD? You simply don't Because no matter what you do, it will never be enough and by indulging one side, you will make the other angry. And by acknowledging one, you will make everyone demand the same. You can't satisfy everyone, so the best thing to do is simply keep making your game and remain silent. See... even their silence is being criticized.

As a somewhat new member of these forums, I was shocked to see the negative vibe that surrounds it. The majority acting as if Larian is a bunch of incompetent monkeys that don't know what they're doing... when in fact these wonderful people made Divinity Original Sin 2, a widely praised and incredibly loved game with over 125000 (95%) positive reviews on Steam. To me these forums are far too critical, nitpicky and harsh towards developers who have such pure passion for making RPG games and don't drown it in a cesspool of DLCs and other predatory monetization.

So for them it is best to keep silent and simply observe feedback. If they agree with feedback and wish to act on it, great. If not, that's okay too. Their vision, their game... which I without a doubt believe will be as great, if not even better than DOS2.

To be clear this is not at all what I am advocating.

I am proposing a simple Q&A session in a format acceptable to Larian that allows for answers to a few of the issues that have garnered a lot of discussion and that could be put to bed once and for all. For example if Larian does not intend to increase Party size beyond 4 just answer yes or no. We're grown up enough to accept the answer, and could then move on from that discussion.

I spit out my coffee when I read this.


I strongly agree with this. It's unsettling. I completely understand why Larian would not want to communicate here.

I understand that and I truly hope you do get some clarification and even resolution on what they might and might not do. It would be nice and I'd also be interested in reading their thoughts. But speaking from personal experience, even the simplest of answers is difficult when it comes to the gaming community where even grown adults can act like whiny overdemanding babies. Now I'm not saying the same would happen here, but even these forums have some overly passionate people who are too blinded and outright passive aggressive in trying to get what they want. In fact, one of the mega-threads is exactly what I'm referring to, which is why I do not participate in the discussion about it. Even stating my opinion as a general reply in a completely unrelated topic was enough to see the passive-aggression that would come my way had I kept discussing it.

So if I sensed such a bad vibe here as a new member that quickly, then I completely understand anyone from Larian for lack of communication. Personally I'm just happy to be able to play this awesome game and enjoy my time and provide some feedback/suggestion/insight from time to time. I truly hope they do give you some clarification, but I also hope people will be understanding and not overly judgemental if they don't. It's not an easy thing to deal with communities, especially gaming ones.

I think a lot of the 'negative' feedback is rather constructive criticism and at times very well observed, though granted there are a few posters here who are maybe too negative (I include myself in that). I hate to nitpick but 'the Box' debacle would suggest a certain level of incompetence on Larian's part.

Whilst I can understand the praise around DOS2, fundamentally this is a totally different and a legendary IP at that, with a totally different rule set. In my humble opinion, BG3 should have had nothing to do with DOS2 whatsoever, other than sharing the same developer. By mixing a bit of both you end up with something that is trying to be all things to all people.

I suppose my hypothetical question to you would be, how would you respond if a new developer made DOS:3 but did their own interpretation, removing some of the fundamental things that made it so loved and implementing their own ideas, so much so that it felt like a very different game? You are clearly a huge fan of DOS2 so I'm interested to hear what your likely response would be?

i don’t think Larian owns us anything beyond finishing he game but I would definitely like to hear some more dev insight - what we get are PFH which are just marketing events showcasing new features but discussing little when it comes to “whys”. Why is chain system designed as it is? What are their view on reactions? How do they juggle different fanbases? How did they arrive on certain changes to 5e ruleset?

The overwhelming majority of people who bother posting here just wants the game to become better in areas where it falls short.

Of course, you seem to think they are a bunch of haters, but that's because your idea of "constructive criticism" is an aggressively worded letter of thank you.

+10000

I absolutely agree and it is as it should be, "Constructive negative feedback" being expressed politely and to the point. The whole point of constructive feedback is to provide positive or negative opinion about a feature. But when negative feedback is provided in a way that is demeaning, passive-aggressive or outright negative towards the developers or other members on this forum, that creates a toxic vibe which puts off people. I understand people are extremely passionate about the game and want it to be the best game ever, but passion can also be quite toxic and often ends up achieving the opposite effect.

Also I have no clue what the Box debacle is


I merely mention DOS2 as an example that Larian is a team of competent developers that know how to make great games that many end up loving, even those who previously were turned off by the turn-based RPG genre. Personally I'm not looking for DOS2 in Baldur's Gate 3 and as someone who plays both extensively, both games are vastly different and only share some minor similarity. As far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer it to be as hardcore DnD as it can get.

Prior to Baldur's Gate 3, I had zero interest in turn-based games, despite playing countless of other real-time RPGs that were either based or inspired by DnD rulesets. I was someone who found the turn-based genre boring and something I never considered playing. But when I saw Baldur's Gate 3, I was amazed how great the game and the character customization looked. Despite it being turn-based I decided to try it out and enjoyed this newly found RPG experience. However I really wanted to play something finished, so I checked out Divinity Original Sin 2 from Larian as well. I was reluctant to try DOS2, because it was different, looked somewhat cartoony and seemed not as serious. But I got it, played it and it ended up as one of my favorite games of all time. 2 years later and I'm still playing it religiously and even got DOS1 because I can't get enough of it.

So if Larian managed to convert me from someone who absolutely disliked turn-based RPGs to someone who absolutely enjoys them and now finds them more interesting than real-time, then obviously they're doing something right. And for the record, I can only play Larian turn-based RPGs. I still absolutely hate other turn-based RPGs with boxed movement


Naturally I would love for the story to continue and fantastic sequels to be made, but even if they don't or they're made different, it doesn't really matter to me as I will always have DOS2.

But to answer the question properly; from the moment it changes developers it stops being true Divinity Original Sin, because the visionaries who made the game and wrote the story are no longer there... so at that point it becomes fan-fiction to me and I'd be silly expecting to have a similar experience that I had with DOS2. So the real question then would be would I or could I enjoy it ? I am very simple when it comes to games. All it matters to me is whether the game is enjoyable as a whole or not, because games to me are a unique experience with a culmination of various different aspects blended into one. So yes I could even if it was different, but as long as the game is great and enjoyable and the story respects the prequels.

Witcher for example, although didn't change developers, did change directions throughout its games. I can play Witcher 1, 2, 3, and Thronebreaker without an issue and I enjoy all of these games, despite each and every one being quite different. Witcher 1 in particular is extremely different than its sequel Witcher 2.

So is Baldur's Gate 3 a true spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 as people would love it to be? No, and it never will be. It is different. But is this change bad or good? Well... I can only speak for myself. I freaking love this game to death ^^

Respectfully, I can't see the relevance of this (which can be said of nearly any discussion forum) to the topic of this thread. Do you oppose the idea of Larian answering in their own way (through a Forum moderator for example) a few simple questions such as "Is the 4 member party a hard limit?" or "Are you actively working to increase maximum party size beyond its current limit of 4?" ?

I think the Larian Development Team can handle that. As I said earlier I'm not advocating they come on here live for a punching bag session. Just clear up a few of the easier to clear up questions that are being discussed on the forums.

Quite the opposite, as I said earlier I hope they provide you some clarification for your concerns. I would definitely love to hear some of their thoughts, though I understand if they do not wish to share.

This is all well and good for you. But what about those of us, like me, who are passionate fans of the original BG games and who have been waiting twenty years for that third game in the series, who are very excited at the prospect of finally having that third BG game, BUT who did NOT consider the D:OS games to be good games at all? It's not like we can just wait a few more years and expect someone else to give us that new BG game. This is it. There is no other possibility of a new BG game. So, as someone who did NOT see D:OS2 as a good game, but who as a huge fan of the original BG games very much wants to get a really good BG3 game, what exactly should I be doing here?

+1 to the above. I also consider myself a fan of the original series and quickly dropped DOS 1 & 2 because the games weren't for me.

While Larian does not OWE its EA players anything, it is a common curtesy in development to minimally engage with customers/fans. As an engagement specialist (not in games, but project development, so there are clear similarities), Larian's engagement has been very poor and not conducive to trust. Worse, they openly requested feedback and constructive criticism...

As mentioned above, there are a number of pending design questions that haven't been answered by Larian, many of which, in their actual state, go against d&d 5e design. While Larian does not have to stick to 5e, the game is marketed as such. It is therefore to be expected that questions and concerns arise. A company that cares about its playerbase should minimally understand that and engage appropriately.

Long story short, the OP's request seems very appropriate to me, 2 years into EA development.

You keep mentioning DOS as if it was some sort of ultimate evidence that Larian can do no wrong, when incidentally the inane amount of subsystems that were either ill-conceived or downright broken is one of the major reasons I trust Larian's game designers only as far as I can throw them.

For how much I liked DOS 1 and 2 (I used to mention both as my strongest candidates for "game of the year" in their respective launch windows) they are also games that have some spectacularly BAD subsystems. Examples may include:

ITEMIZATION
______________________

Both DOS1 and 2 have some of the WORST itemization I've ever seen in a party-based CRPG, for one. Not just dull, not even just uninspired or unsatisfying. No, we are talking about downright annoying.
Do you know what's a terrible match for a story-driven RPG with a finite number of enemies and encounters? A Diablo-like randomized loot that keeps throwing randomly generated and super-generic trash at you.
Do you know what's even worse? A system tuned to ramp up in power so steeply and so frequently that nothing you'll find will ever be a good fit for your characters for more than a couple of levels. And you won't have your single Diablo-like character to dress up, no, but a whole damn party.

Man, how could we make this any worse at this point? Oh, I got this! What if we added a Lucky Finder skill and made it so that opening any random container in the game (and in a game where there are what feels like BILLIONS of them) would have a fairly solid chance to give you items of better quality of what you got from bosses barely 30 minutes before?

The amount of unnecessary inventory busywork plus the unshakable sense of dissatisfaction at the realization that nothing really mattered and everything was generic vendor trash made the loot system/itemization aggressively detrimental to the quality of the game.

ARMOR SYSTEM
_______________________


The problem with the armor system in DOS 2 is that it makes hardly any sense in principle and it creates way more problems that it was set to solve.
Discouraging mixed sources of damage (which it factually does, it doesn't matter if you can work your way around it) is only the tip of the iceberg. There's also the fact that makes a certain amount of utility skills/spells utterly useless (not "unreliable" as much as literally 100% pointless to even attempt) until a certain threshold of damage has been passed, etc.

Basically it's a system of HP bloat (now in three different flavors!) that favors direct damage dealing above any other strategy. And conversely once that threshold of damage is surpassed the exact opposite becomes true, and some of these crowd controls become 100% reliable.

I mean, sure, you can learn to live with that. We all did.
But holy fucking Christ if it doesn't go straight in the bottom tier among all the countless attempts at "simulating damage mitigation" I've experienced across the years in different rulesets.

The system is simply bad. It splits combat into two phases:
One where you avoid using most skills to not waste status effects.
One where everyone is spamming status effects and crowd controls, or at least those characters who aren't currently stunned, knocked down or polymorphed into poultry while bleeding and on fire.

It also fails to have any semblance to anything. Ablative HPs are generally not particularly good armor mechanics. Ablative armor over entire battle duration is just singularly awful and being combined with cooldowns and stupidly abstract and highly segregated damage system (odd chloroform notwithstanding) doesn't do it any favors.

Smaller split pools depleted and replenishing on per turn basis might actually be quite tolerable both in terms of gameplay (encouraging more tactical approach than non-status alpha strike followed by status alpha strike) and in terms of making sense (overwhelming combatants defenses by concentrating attacks on them), but the system as it is is just a huge clusterfuck of concentrated derp.


AN EXCEEDINGLY STEEP POWER CURVE
_______________________

This is a partial overlap with the itemization, but the skill/perk system has its own share of problems. Power levels climb too fast, the system itself is dull and rewards min-maxing stats more than any other strategy and perks seem come only in the two variants "This is unmissable" and "This is absolutely worthless".


ONE OF THE WORST CONTROL SCHEMES IN THE GENRE TO DATE
_________________________

Well, I've already said more than enough about this.I have the megathread in my signature and the topic came up once again even just recently in a discussion you participated to.
Yeah, sure. "It doesn't bother you". Which doesn't mean it's any good.

There is a lot to like in DoS2 including sizable chunks of combat system, but there is no denying that large parts of it are just inexplicably bad. This includes armor system, damage system, ease of traversing terrain with everyone having jump, flight or teleportation abilities trivializing all those nice area layouts Larian lovingly made as well as lesser things such as nearly inconsequential initiative.

What's worse, they were warned ahead of time of the problems and every time they minimized, downplayed or downright dismissed most of the negative feedback with their usual tune "Nah, it's great, you guys don't get it but you'll come around to love it at some point", only to come back months after the fact to admit "Well, damn, you guys were right, that system was somewhat bad. Tough luck, maybe next time!".

So no, I don't really plan to sit and "let Larian do their things" in a misguide sense of confidence that they can do no wrong.


Past great accomplishments or failures aside, you are being somewhat dismissive of a lot of negative feedback they got over time as if it was just a matter of being a D&D and/or a "classic BG" zealot.
How about acknowledging that people are not just saying "X is bad" but going to great lengths to point EXACTLY what's bad with what they are critizing.

Imagine how many of the often abominable choices that were present in the first EA build (Healing food, jump as a convenient disengage and walking around a character to get advantage come to mind) would have made into release (making the game significantly worse) if hordes of EA testers didn't get very vocal against their existence.

+1 to what Tuco just posted.