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

could you give us one where you show only ruleset and negative/positive, and group by ruleset?

Sure:

The dataset is really cool, but is there a potential for selection bias?
I imagine classic RPGs and older games were making the bulk of their sales and positive reviews prior to being placed on Steam, and that most people who owned the game prior to Steam are not buying the game again.

Sorry, that's not quite what I meant, I'd assumed you'd made a local db with this data and were using sql to pull, so I meant in terms of a sql GROUP BY expression, but no worries, I'll chuck your data in a spreadsheet really quick and update this comment with the results, which I think will be interesting

here we go:


so going strictly by review counts, they're nearly indistinguishable

> is there a potential for selection bias?

Yes, but it beats blanket statements like "D&D games are BY FAR more popular in gaming history".

Let's compare two very similar games: BG1 and Fallout 2. Came out at the same time, have about the same amount of (modern) sales, both have great story, atmosphere, dialogues, and such, both have turn-based tactical combat. The non-D&D game has 50% higher positive feedback.

Other games are harder to directly compare.

Mutant Year Zero and Pathfinder of the same release year. MYZ has great story, worldbuilding, dialogues, adventure in general, and it's got turn-based tactical combat with action points, but it's of lesser scope than Pathfinder. Still, MYZ has 270% higher positive feedback. It's also 60% less popular, but what else am I going to compared it to? DOS2? DOS2 annihilates everything. Gears Tactics? That's a really niche linear W40K game, although of high quality. XCOM 2? While they're at the same approval level, XCOM 2 is ways more popular, and considering that XCOM 2 is basically nothing but combat, it shows what kind of combat system is more popular with the gamers.

As for BG3 e.a., there's absolutely nothing comparable, at least to my knowledge, not in 2020, not now. Maybe Dragon Age 4 would be a good comparison? But it stopped being tactical turn-based after DA:O, so that's a negative. Maybe, if by some miracle it's turn-based, we'll be blessed by some interesting numbers. (Edit: probably not though, EA got off Steam so no stats for us)

> I imagine classic RPGs and older games were making the bulk of their sales and positive reviews prior to being placed on Steam, and that most people who owned the game prior to Steam are not buying the game again.

You can compare modern Steam re-releases to each other, like Fallout 2 and BG. I couldn't find reliable sales numbers neither for original Fallout 2 nor for BG, sorry.

> so going strictly by review counts, they're nearly indistinguishable

Those look like means. I really don't think that's a good indication of anything.

Edit:

> I'd assumed you'd made a local db with this data and were using sql to pull

Nushell: https://imgur.com/a/pYz5a3l

Highly recommend if you're into scripts.

They're not means at all, they're the percentage of positive reviews. dnd games as you've identified them, the reviews are ~93% positive, and the nondnd games as you've identified them are ~90% positive. So I think your point that there's not much difference is well born out, if % positive reviews is the metric

I didn't read it as % of positive being the point, rather the number of reviews being the point to show popularity/play numbers of D&D games vs non.

@Ethreix I think you might be attributing too much of a game's success exclusively to its combat system, and also falling victim to confirmation bias.

In your first post it is made abundantly clear that you don't like the D&D/BG3 combat system, but you list a number of problems with the system that are entirely subjective while treating them as facts, and then you make wild assumptions like how DOS2 fans will be very disappointed with BG3 because it uses a D&D based combat. BG3 has arguably more things in common with games like DOS2 and DA:O than with Icewind Dale and probably even the original BG titles, even in terms of combat, while BG3 and BG1&2 are both DnD, they play very differently, but you're reducing it all to just DnD vs NotDnD combat.

You're taking way too many things for granted for this whole "research" to have any actual validity.

Also, just by looking at those numbers you posted, it's almost safe to predict that BG3's only real competitor to beat in there is DOS2, the other Larian game, maybe the difference doesn't lie in what specific ruleset is used but in how the game is approached as a whole.

While I disagree with wild claims like the one Volourn made, I believe that a DnD based combat system CAN be very successful if done correctly, but still, reducing a game's success to just one of its parts doesn't make much sense, if BG3 ends up being as successful as it seems it will be, it won't be explained just because of what combat system it uses.

> They're not means at all, they're the percentage of positive reviews. dnd games as you've identified them, the reviews are ~93% positive, and the nondnd games as you've identified them are ~90% positive. So I think your point that there's not much difference is well born out, if % positive reviews is the metric

Ahh I see, yes positive% is a good idea, thanks. But mashing them all together like that ... sure, why not, it's another angle on this, but it loses a lot of detail, as destructive aggregation usually does. Important detail too, as these games are difficult to directly compare to each other.

> I think you might be attributing too much of a game's success exclusively to its combat system, and also falling victim to confirmation bias.

It's not clear how much non-combat overshadows combat in some of those titles, but the combat part is quite significant. At least half of the gameplay hours are spent in those adventure-based games in combat I bet, and the higher the difficulty, the time is spent in combat thinking of a best possible move, retrying combat after loading a save, etc.

> but you list a number of problems with the system that are entirely subjective while treating them as facts,

...you don't have to rest between fights? You don't have to prepare spells? BG3 allows the flexibility of performing multiple combat actions without having an action points system? What exactly is subjective here?

> and then you make wild assumptions like how DOS2 fans will be very disappointed with BG3 because it uses a D&D based combat

Yes, because though not direct data, the evidence is against D&D:
- D&D is rare in video games, meaning for some reason game studios are avoiding it
- The majority of the most liked and/or popular tactical turn-based combat games aren't D&D, including Larian's most popular game
- I've seen D&D lovers agreeing that it's too complicated, even in this very thread; in contrast, nobody would ever say Fallout 2 class sheet or combat is complicated (or XCOM). It's fun and satisfying, to the point that it beats BG1. I'm not really sure that Fallout 2 wins over BG1 with story alone, that's highly unlikely.

Like you said, I'm making an assumption. If you disagree, I'll be interested in counter-arguments.

> it's almost safe to predict that BG3's only real competitor to beat in there is DOS2

It's very hard to compare BG3 to anything because the industry shifted from turn-based to action, like with Dragon Age 2, 3, all Mass Effects (easily could've been turn-based, all of them), Fallout 3, 4. Pretty sure Dragon Age 4 won't be turned-based, even though I want it to be. But, you're right that DOS2 can be used for comparison, and we'll see when it fully releases.

Cant you people at least pretend you are trying to stick to the topic?

@ RagnarokCzD

My comment about Paradox was less their games (especially the games they just publish) and more how they usually make the Dev Diaries for their GSG titles. Sometimes they acknowledge feedback and explain how it influences game design and such.
Not saying they are great, but that this specific practice could have lessened the disconnect between the EA-players and Larians final release.

We know that some changes where pushed into it through "feedback", but we do not know how that feedback was implemented. Resulting in changes that look and feel absolutely random. On top of potential feedback from Wizards themselves.

I still think our direct and indirect feedback was important and influenced the game quite a lot, but the opaqueness of the creative process makes it nigh impossible to actually see or verify any influence what-so-ever.

Edit:
To the topic above: D&D is one of the main pillars of computer RPGs. Maybe less in modern times, but things like the Gold Box games where a heavy influence on future RPGs. Even if we ignore other system for this, we have to thank D&D for all Pathfinder games (because that directly diverged from D&D), all games that emulate that "Infinity Engine" feel (because that was made for D&D games). Oh, and all Final Fantasy games because the first ones where kind of adaptions of the D&D the devs where playing.

In hindsight, I probably won't do an early access for a game and attempt to give feedback again unless it is with a very small group of players. I think a lot of well-written and well-argued posts on here seem to get lost in the void of the sheer content of discussion occurring around BG3. Between the forum, discord, subreddit, twitter/threads, youtube, and games media, I find it hard to imagine that some of the best individual posts on here were taken in serious consideration. I initially came here because the Early Access said to provide feedback at the forums, but now I just shitpost in anticipation of the release. While there was some wonderful discussions between fans of RPGs and Larian, I do not think that these discussions amounted to anything other than mutual entertainment. Oftentimes this forum feels like a relic of a previous era of the Internet, and that it is treated as such. Not to say it wasn't fun, but I wouldn't say the long posts on improving the game were worth the effort for anyone.

One of the things I enjoyed about this early access, even after it was well clear there wasn't any heavy lean from Larian on the feedback from the forum, was seeing others' opinions, ideas, etc. In full release, what's available comes from a huge spectrum. EA? Everyone commenting has a passion for *some* aspect, and reading the thoughts of others passionate about this being the best it can be, even knowing we weren't having the impact we would have liked, has been very much worthwhile.

5th ed is already to simple. Take this for what is worth but I speak as a primary 1st ed pathfinder player and a player of MMOs. I by no means know that much, but basic reading the forums for a week has taught me what I needed to understand well enough to where I can make builds that one shot Enemies In early access.

Is it asking much from a consumer to understand the product they are buying? I am inclined to think no. A player who knowingly buys a new game with a new system takes the onus onto themselves to trial by fire. I would find it disgraceful and disingenuous to me [if I was a hard-core player] to ruin a game meant for me, so that others who do not actually care [causuals play a game for 2 weeks before deskari locusting to the next game]. I feel genuinely bad for all hard-core 5th ed fans who got shafted by Larian.....

Sorry ... i wanted to write you a reply, but i forgot about it. :-/
As i said, i was watching their development of Bloodlines 2 very closely, i have read every Dev Diary, often even twice over just to be sure i didnt miss any important information i could chew meanwhile ...

And it was mostly disapointment.

I admit i dont remember content of all of them, but i clearly remember as i was allways exited when some was released, hoping i get some interesting tidbit about game, or its mechanics ... and as i was complaining after each and every single one of them, that they were complete waste of my (and anyone who wrote them as the matter of fact) time.

I remember that when whole world was 3rd or 4th month in quarantene, they wrote Dev Diary about "it was not really easy to work from home" ... like, duh ... we noticed mr developer, we are all living like this for 1/4 of year now. :-/ How is that any new?

And then we waited another few months for them to release another Dev Diary, wich was basicaly just poor excuse for them to repeat that working from home still sucks and show us pictures of their pets.

It was outraging and in matter of informations, absolutely useless.

So ... yeah, Dev Diaries can be usefull tool ... but i strongly recomend Lariain to NOT take inspiration from Paradox in that regard. xD

but Paradox makes money, i mean you don't like the new Dlc = just wait a month for the next one

Sory, but i see no corelation with either topic, or last post. O_o

Don't worry about it.



They are the publishers (and IP owners) of that game, I was refering to the games they develop (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron, Stelaris).

Again, not perfect, but for all their massive amount of DLCs, they are rather popular. It probably helps making some of the best Grand Strategy Games.


Well, my main point was about transparency and not Paradox.
The issue I see with the Early Access is, that it sometimes is hard to see *why* they make certain decisions. I do, as said before, think that the EA feedback has been very important. But they are terrible at communicating that importance.