Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 appeal: context, challenge or catharsis?

In a recent episode Extra Punctuation Yahtzee made an interesting classification of how game's can engage the player, those being: context, challenge, and catharsis. I think it is a pretty good simplification, as I think I can easily put every game that I played an enjoyed under one or more of these headings. As such I thought it could be interesting to look at BG3 through those three lenses.


Context


That is definitely, what I found appealing in original BG1&2 - the fantasy of adventuring, characters to interact with, immersive world. I never thought D&D was a good combat system from gameplay perspective, but I thought it did context well - a sneaky thief to fight different to an archmage, or undead, and that sells the fantasy of the situation.

This is, IMO, biggest "downgrade" from BG1&2 to BG3. The artificial and contrived feel of the world, clash between game mechanics and it's narrative, how mean, and unenjoyable characters are to interact with. Riddiculous, jump, shove and other mechanics, which goes against the narrative of the game. At least for me, Context isn't compelling me to play more, and I honestly don't really care to see more of the story.

Challenge

This is, where I think BG3 has the most potential, if the game gets balanced properly. Again shove (and I think it explains why I hate it so much - it negatively touches multiple aspects of the game), and other potentially harmful homebrew options. I don't think every game needs a well designed combat, but not having it, definitely harms the potential engagement. So far BG3 also undermines its "soft challenge of an RPG where you have to level up and gather equipment to make your damage numbers high enough to take on the big boss at the end" - so far it doesn't have much of it (which I personally approve - I am much bigger fan if tactical challenge, then statistic challenge), but that is where, for example, I find "shove Hag from stealth for guaranteed kill" is so detrimental - as it actively undermines any satisfation player might get from beating the enemy through tactical skills, or leveling up.


Catharsis


Is this BG3 appeal? Sheer production value making people enjoy it, in spite of shortcomings in previous two aspects? I have some issues with BG3 clunkiness (cough chain system cough, attacking from stealth one by one and joining to combat cough), but interacting with stuff is fundemantally satisfying - be it throwing or smacking a goblin over a head, and shoving someone to death does give some basic satisfaction. Maybe those are just games that are not for me - currently playing Spider-man, and while combat and swinging is incredibly fun and satisfying, and can't help but with the game would have more sustance - narratively, or challenge wise. And at least for me personally it would check out - I always enjoy BG3 for the first couple hours I play it, but easily get bored with it, due to lack of compelling gameplay or engaging narrative to push me forward. While Context or Challenge alone can carry the game for me, catharsis cannot.

I feel like those points don't and wont stop BG3 from ticking all 3 boxes for the vast majority of players. What you judge as "ridiculous" is understood by most as nothing more than typical gameplay interactions. It is ok to show exaggerated things in a fantasy video game, the suspension of disbeliefs bar is way higher in this case.
Even in this work in progress state, I have already seen plenty of people invested in the story, challenged by the game and often reaching a "catharsis" state after some exceptional events. Would balancing the few overpowered interactions or reworking the chain system improve the game? Sure! But the foundation is solid enough to already have a fantastic time. DoS2 has already show that and BG3 is its logical next step.

@Wormerine, this is very interesting, and you're correct in your interpretations. BG3 is very heavy on Catharsis first and secondarily Challenge, while hardly at all on Context. In fact, all of the things that go into the Context category are treated by Larian almost as nuisances that they have to include in the game only because they're expected in a cRPG. And of course, as you might have expected, for me the Context category is EXCLUSIVELY why I play RPGs.

I think the way to think about it is what fuels main engagement from players. Every game will have some kind of story, some kind of challenge and some kind of catharsis.

Spider-Man is a good example - it actually has a lengthy and pretty well put together story and there is a lot to like there. It also had decent combat with some neat optional challenges for various of it's system. But the game primarily relies on rushes player gets from ticking off boxed, swinging on the web and kicking butts of easy to beat enemies.

I am not saying that BG3 has no compelling characters, no compelling story beats or no challenge - just what fuels its engagement.

I didn't create this thread to necessarily criticise BG3, but this way of thinking make we wonder how BG3 does and doesn't engage me. That is an interesting question to me, asit is a game theoretically I should love, it being a top down cRPG and Baldura Gate IP on top, and it is a mixed experience for me.

For me BG3’s storytelling and characters fuel engagement and are a big part of why I love the game! I am not a fan of simulations, though, and that seems to be what some miss in BG3. In some games, such as Bethesda’s games, simulation dilutes the story, so I consider simulation and storytelling to be different aspects of a game.

Whilst I broadly agree with your first points because it is clear a lot of people do like this game and the things bother many about BG3 also do not bother plenty of others, probably a majority in fact.

Nevertheless, to address your last point, this is not the sequel to DOS2, this is the sequel to BG2 and that is the crux of the issue in many instances. So I can't agree that BG3 is DOS2's logical next step, despite sharing the same developer. If I had made my name working for Ford motorcars and suddenly landed a job at Ferrari, I would hesitate at trying to make Ferraris more like a Ford but that's just me. It is clear Larian wanted the BG IP to further their own ends, not to pay homage by making the successor they could have chosen to do. When I see a Larian storyboard of various sexual positions I know that the BG IP has gone off in a direction I do not care for.

That was very interresting to read.

I totally agree with your analysis. Considering those 3 boxes it is absolutely obvious that "context" is the one most of my critics are about.

@snowram : "Typical gameplay interraction" can be on or off context according to me. Pushing someone in a hole is possible in the Forgotten Realms. But it would never be how it looks like (visual, physic, frequency,...) in BG3. It is exactly the same with jumps and the shockwave when you land. The way things are presented is at odds with the universe we play in.

This is just 2 exemples but it is true in many aspect of the game.
Wormerine talked about a clash between mechanics and story and it is true. The resting system VS the urgency in the story is a perfect exemple.
The distance between the goblins "outpost" (blighted village) and the grove VS Minthara need our help to find the grove ins another exemple of clash between the map design and the story.
The lack of unpredictable events / danger in a part of the world described as full of trouble is another one to me.

I have a long list of "complaints" and all those things make the story and the exploration a lot less apealing to me because what I like the most in RPG is having the feeling that I'm living an epic quest in a believable world.
In BG3 everything feel divided in parts that are not coherent as a whole.

It does not mean that I don't enjoy the game a lot but I'm mostly sure most players would like it even more if it was a coherent whole. Best sellers RPG usually are coherent wholes.

As an avid Dwarf Fortress player, I understand your point of view. I too do like very cohesive worlds, where everything is a believable cog in an abstract giant machine. Ultimately, I think it boils down to the dichotomy open world/theme park. The MMO world also had this fracture many years ago, they used to be like you described until WoW redefined the genre with its popularity. Both have their advantages and I believe BG3 fits comfortably on that scale. BG 1 and 2 were more cohesive in their approach, but I can appreciate the way this game tries to set its stage. Locations are nice, npcs are memorable, stories hooked me and I don't feel like I'm being taken out the experience by compromises on map design.

That was very interesting to read, Wormerine.


It's the same with me. BG3 is the first game where I really want to learn more about ALL of our companions. This seems to be a divisive topic, but personally, I like the character writing and the interactions between our character and the companions very much. I like the process of slowly building trust, especially with the companions we did not get off to a good start with/who are initially not the most friendly ones.

I like the story, and I want to know where all of this is going. When I play a game, I want to get immersed, and so far, BG3 is very immersive for me, despite some flaws that are a bit immersion-breaking (for example: I need to take too many long rests to hear all companion dialogues, despite a sense of urgency // why can't I help Benryn carrying his dead wife out of the burning inn, or why does he not do it himself - it's not the best idea to remain in a building that is supposed to be collapsing (and he will stay there forever), and so on... ).

But for me, the positive aspects outweigh the flaws by far. I would not have played hundreds of hours (so far) if I wouldn't like it (Even if I get very frustrated every time I fight Auntie Ethel. Why is this fight so much harder than any other fight, especially if you try not to kill the enchanted people?)

Sometimes I feel a bit odd when I write about the things I love about this game here, since the focus seems to be more about the things that are not so well received. I am very aware that some things could still use a bit of work, but I think you can love or like a game even if not everything is "perfect".

And I like that -at least for me- the replay value of BG3 is very high. So far, it has not become boring yet, there are so many possibilities how something can be achieved, and I find it very rewarding to discover new ways to solve a problem.

I'm pretty much on the same board as @Lyelle.

I do like what they did with the companions and the fact that they don't necessarily trust us and are not immediately super happy/friendly with us. As a cautious introverted person, I find it more relatable 😅, especially in such an hostile environment. In fact, the companions are pretty much what invited me to start playing the game after seeing some snippets here and there on Youtube. I also still find the story interesting and engaging. Even NPCs seem like fully fleshed out characters.

My main "issue" with the companions is that I don't really have good reason not to accept them in my party since the party will be locked after Act 1 (the separation will be difficult). Controversial. In know 😅 Even my Oath of the Ancients paladin would want to help them and have them help me. Yes, even Astarion, Laez'el and SH. I could write paragraphs on this. Although, I won't bore you with this 😅

Sure, they are reusing tropes for most of the companions and the story. However, the usage of tropes isn't inherently a bad thing.
I think the concept of "trope" has a pejorative connotation because there are so many passionless/tasteless/soulless projects (movies, games, series...) out there using tropes to jump on trends as a cash-grab. I really don't feel like that's 100% the case here (based on EA).


But, as stated several time on this forum, I absolutely agree with the issue related to using long rests as a mean to tell the story. Not only the story of the companions, but the main story as well (the tadpoles and Raphael for instance). That's a big downside (on my opinion) to the storytelling and it seems that players aren't able to enjoy the story/companions because of it (based on what I've seen shared by players on this forum, Reddit and Youtube).

In fact, I do have one other concern : while I really enjoyed DOS2 during Act 1, I lost the motivation to play the game at the beginning of Act 2. That is how I react to big "open-world-like" map with a great number of quests spread out everywhere in a way that feels incoherent. I end up feeling overwhelmed.
I personally hope that BG3 avoid maps bigger than the ones we currently have. In fact, I'll have to disagree with OP on this. I like the level design for the most part. I easily can find an excuse for my character to explore and do side-quests because of the size of the map and the way quests are introduced. In my case, it helps with the immersion.


So, yes. The "context" has some imperfections and I do have some concerns about certain things, but I would still consider it to be one of BG3 strong suits. In my case, the story, the companions, the NPCs and the world of BG3 are things that I really like about the game and the reasons why I've spent so many hours playing it. Also, I don't find the jump/shove/other mechanics to be ridiculous. Interesting that views can differ on small things like that 😄


But, in the end, all of this in subjective. It's perfectly valid to find that some things are missing or too much. People unanimously liking a game would be a first 😄
I do have a bit of sympathy for the players that don't vibe with BG3 but liked (and even were fans of) BG1/BG2. I've been (more and less) there with the Tomb Raider games. Things change. Sometimes it's harder to accept that when we feel like we are losing something.



I understand this sentiment oh so well. Especially with the people I've seen linking things like "not thinking that D/N cycle is absolutely needed" with "licking Larian's arse".

I think BG3 if far more simulationist then BG1&2 was - as if it has more systems that it wants players to interact with. It's just BG3 systems don't support the story/fantasy of BG3, while in BG1&2 I thought it was their main purpose. It's a bit like Rockstar builds their open worlds focusing on worldbuilding an immersion, while Ubisoft designs their around collectibles and activities. None of those are more or less open-wordly then others - just Rockstar makes their openworlds engaging through context, while Ubisoft through catharsis.

Edit:
Honestly, when I started writing the original post I wondered if BG3 belonged in neither category. Yahtzee (and myself) is mainly singleplayer focused, and I wonder if his catigorisation misses a lot of appeal that multiplayer focused games use. I really enjoyed my coop time in D:OS1 and I really don't know where I would put this experience. At the same time, there is also a question if it is the game that is really bringing the enjoyment. I think liking coffee, and "liking to have a cup of coffee and a chat with a friend" are rather two different things. That said many people do enjoy D:OS2 and BG3 in singleplayer so there is definitely something there.

It's also possible that I played to many finely crafted, cohesive games to not be able to compartmentalize game into chunks. I would think that we graduted in 90s from treating story and gameplay as two seperate entities. I find it difficult to get invested in the story, if a minute later I am doing something contrary to it. If we praise to high heaven games that marry their narrative and gameplay loop (or even better, tell their narrative through gameplay loop), then surely it is a fair criticism if in a game those two are at odds?

For me BG3 is actually pretty heavy on "context". I don't see any way the combat mechanics clash with the narrative. We're larger than life heroes doing larger than life things. Shove is the least fantastical thing about what our characters can do and is only really an issue as a matter of balance, not a matter of story.

When my character leaps a huge distance it reinforces that my character, even if martial, is a great hero who could believably be expected to fight a flock of harpies or rush into melee against a massive owlbear. In fact I'd argue Larian's Jump is way better at giving value and immersion to a Strength based character than the actual tabletop is, as the distance you can jump is more extreme and visually impressive. I have so many fond memories both in singleplayer and multiplayer where my strength ranger was leaping around exploring the map and my wizardly friends were lagging behind unable to keep up without expending spell slots. Especially in multiplayer me and my friends enjoyed banter over the physical weakness of their characters that was only truly obvious because of mechanics like Shove and Jump.

My Tiefling bard with massive Strength picking up and tossing my friend's gnome bard into the enemy was both hilarious and an epic recreation of an iconic scene from Lord of the Rings, and it was only possible because of how impactful Strength is in throwing things.

Or another situation where my Githyanki leaped up a flight of stairs and used Cleave with his greatsword to cut down three goblin archers in a single swing. An epic, memorable moment that enhanced the feeling of being a heroic warrior.

It seems to me that it is less "the game lacks context" and more "I am not looking for this kind of fantasy".

Fair criticism of immersion, to me, would be in the way the game urges you to take as few long rests as possible narratively while requiring you to take many long rests to experience large chunks of the narrative. I've still not seen Gale's Weave scene because that just isn't the pace I play at. Things like that direly need to be addressed for the same of narrative and context, but certainly not the ability to push things.

Yes, I enjoy BG3 single player.

For me its first context, then catharsis and challenge last.
I love games with a good story. My favourites would be:
- Planescape Torment (combat is bad and tbh I am not a fan of DnD2E in general, but characters, setting and dialogues are absolutely fantastic)
- Disco Elysium (No combat at all, but the stuff you read and the things you can do are fantastic. One of the few games where I really like full voice acting, in many games I do not care and I don´t mind reading tons of text)
- Nier Automata ( The game is not difficult, but the setting and music is fantastic. There are few games where I just stand there, look at the environment and listen to the music. This is one of them.)

On the other hand, I have no problems to chose story mode difficulty if I really like the story but difficult battles make playtime much longer.
I usually start playing on normal difficulty and only select an easier one if I have to reload a lot or battles take forever.
I would never select the highest difficulty or some extra challenges just to torture myself.

Regarding BG3, I like that the game is very interactive and there are many ways to do things.
But many game mechanics really go on my nerves or feel just wrong (shove, everything causes AOE effects, and so on)
So basically I want the story, graphics, characters and environment of BG3 with the game mechanics and user interface from Solasta.

Sorry but the notion of clearing an enemies head from a standing jump while wearing armour belongs in Super Mario or even throwing or shoving an enemy dozens of feet likewise breaks any kind of immersion in what is a fantasy adventure with adult themes. Whilst the game inhabits a fantasy world with magic and monsters you still need some basis in realism or it just feels goofy, which is precisely what it is, so in that sense the combat does clash with the narrative in my opinion. I know plenty of people who are stronger than me but I can run faster and probably jump further than most of them.

So yes while I agree "I am not looking for this kind of fantasy", I think BG3 fundamentally fails on presenting a coherent narrative and game world.

Also, during early levels we are not really 'larger than life heroes', I would assume that would come later in the game when we much higher levels?

To add on to this, in certain playthroughs, my Tav is (can be) a complete and utter novice who got picked up by the ship. Not a hero, or a great warrior, or anything special. Just a normal dude who has to fight to survive, and in doing so gradually discovers his potential within. Most Fighter level 1 and 2 abilities make sense for this: swing a sword, get a little bonus to my chosen Fighting Style, swing a sword twice once per short rest, etc. But the superhero-esque jumps and 10+ foot shoves feel out of place for my idea of Tav in these cases. He should certainly be able to jump/shove, but not as cartoonishly far.

This is a d&d game where characters are in a world where doing things which aren’t “realistic” it’s a world of magic. Items and skills learned make characters far more capable than “normal” people - that’s part of the enjoyment & part of the essence of enjoying Dungeons & Dragons. Nobody plays it to be grounded in realism.

You clearly didn't read my post properly.

The world is fantasy and full of magic and yet our characters have to sleep just like in the real world. And weapons can harm us just like in the real world. And the game world is still for the most part governed by little things such as gravity, weather, time...just like in the real world. So, the game absolutely requires a dose of realism to go along with the high fantasy elements. That's precisely why jumping over an enemies head is ridiculous in BG3, unless you have imbued yourself with some magical item/ability.

I'm sure they read it, but creating a weaker argument to attack is much easier than attacking your original argument.

Weaker argument? I just don’t agree with his thoughts on the combat - drinking a potion of jump & leaping 30 ft over your enemies head or drinking a potion of strength & picking a boulder and throwing it with ease is exactly what we want.
That’s D&D and that’s what this game is - fantasy - a departure from reality but that doesn’t mean say no need for sleep or food etc …it’s elements of both to me at least.
I find bg3 very immersive & especially the combat - but that’s just me - if I wanted normal combat without heroic possibilities I wouldn’t play a game set in this world.