I'll try to leave some things for players to find out, but in order to make sense of all this certain details have to be discussed. It's a combination of feedback, ideas that worked wll in past D&D games (that DLC with BG3 could make use of) and what I think went well and what was too forced.
Having looked into some youtube vids of what other people think it seems the biggest mistake the devs have made is trying to please everyone and playing it too safe. This is a computer game, not a tabletop. There's everything to gain from having higher level caps. the difference is that with a computer game people can play single player in a more timely fashion and play as they please. So if a player wants to turn into a dragon and have that option then why not have that option? Being afraid of getting powerful and delving into god like powers is fear and paranoia and in inability of balancing that properly. If this is the reason then I'd rather hear that then the excuses for being afraid about taking risks. There are ways to balance such things. Using 5e as an excuse it not going to stand. It's a matter of context, not generalizing. Context will always be key. Which is something I'll be stressing a lot of in this thread. Ultimately, regardless of what is done it's always going to be about "how" things are done. Having played the game a good bit I'm noticing that there's a certain pattern with all the NPC interactions.
Let's start with how the NPCs are interacted with. Do we really need to have the camera up close to each and every one if all a number of them say is a a few lines with zero feedback from the avater? With each and every single "sharpshooter" or "warrior"? As interesting as some of the goblin outcomes are it might also the weakest part of the game. The reason for this is because they're typical goblins that are "just evil and want to kill". Even if the player frees a prisoner. It's a typical "play it safe" goblin start. With goblins not using their brains enough. And the worst part is that all the sneaking around is ruined with the hobgoblin leader. The drow leader, who can be a companion, also can't be recruited unless you murder hobo the druids. I don't mind being evil (more on that later), but when it's this black and white it's a bit forcing it. The player can't manipulate all sides. One could move through the area without getting involved but the result of that is lack of XP and interactions. So that's not an ideal outcome. Even worse, to free the druid it forces the player to fight the goblins and kill the kids. Kid killing isn't the problem. The fact there's no other way to free the prisoner is. There's no "Talk your way through it" without killing the goblins in the prison. Or if there is there doesn't seem to be any hints indicating as such. Surely even druids would understand the concept of trying to employ other methods without violence if possible. So wouldn't the druid prisoner at least say something about that first while still in the cage? Can we not get the goblins to go away without violence? The goblin camp seems to force the player to have a big fight no matter how sneaky they are. It defeats the entire point of trying to have a stealth playstyle with high charisma talking your way through things. Considering past D&D games have handled such things so much better I'm not satisfied with how the goblin camp was handled ultimately. That said I think if more had been done in the stealth and diplomacy areas (not being forced into a fight with freeing the bear for example) then that could change. The spiders fighting the goblins when freed I'm fine with because they're not wise druids. And while druids can fight when push comes to shove, here it seems like subtilty would have served better. The druid camp itself is well done being the "good" guys. But that's exactly the problem. "Evil" doesn't mean "brian dead" and "Forced to fight". Evil characters is something I'll be getting too at some point, but for now let's address the mindflayers. Along with hype goggles which I am not letting blind me. I know it might be tempting to treat this game as "best game ever" but without criticism it the flaws won't be imroved on. I think Baldur's Gate 3 has potential, but I think it's not tapped into. It could be though. With some good DLC I think Baldur's Gate 3 can do really really well. There's a lot the game does well, but it's making some common mistakes.
Let's address the mindflayers. I think this could have been handled a lot better. They take over just a bit too much. This is where I get into spoiler territory and compare mindflayers in BG3 to mindflayers in BG2.
Honestly, I'm not satisfied with how it was done in Baldur's Gate 3. I just can't take a giant floating brain as the final boss seriously. And the way it speaks? And how breifly it's around? It's too rushed. Too forced. I can take an elder brain in BG2 seriously because it's more subtle (illusions over might. That makes much more sense for mindflayers). BG2 also did the whole "The player is dangerious" thing a lot better. Everything was dripping in suspense. It just so happened that when I turned into the Bhallspawn form in BG2 it also lead to the death of the romantic interest. When the player IS the threat and there's suspense with a looming threat there's more at stake. The tadpole doesn't present that threat. It SAYS it but it doesn't SHOW it. Bhall does show up in BG3 but it's like they're on the side. Which may indicate leading up to a showdown in DLC later? As for mindflayers, after a god being that threat in BG2 combined with elder brains and a drow city in the underdark in BG2, plus dragons and demons, which somehow connects together in the same place immersively... it just seems hard to out do that. "Tadpole in my head" seems like less of a threat at that point. I think mindflayers in BG3 would have been done better if some other race was working with them and pulling the strings. Not everything has to be transformed into a mindflayer. Multiple races working together without being infected on mass because of mutual goals would have been better then "big floating brain". Which talks like a caveman when cornered. It's inconsistent. There's more I could say about how it ends but that's something I'll leave for people to find out. BG3 just seems to "force it". BG2 had mindflayers while they fitted in more. The culture was shown more clearly. Githyankee were prisoners too. Basically BG2 had more subtle details and nuance while still having the big impact. BG3 took a more "hollywood" approach. That doesn't mean BG3 is a bad game. But if Neverwinter NIghts 1 has more little touches with familiars, of which is lacking altogether, a game that came out over 20 years ago, then you tell me. I'd also rather have "complicated kobolds" then "Yet another goblin start". Meaning in Neverwinter Nights 1 the kobolds aren't "just evil". You can even genially get along with them and their dragon leader, who is a bit on the "frosty" side, but can be reasoned with if you play your cards right. That just isn't an option in BG3 unless you're going to be a "good guy" or a murder hobo. Yet another detail is how gnolls can be teamed up with in BG2. While in BG3 they're hostile on sight. This is in the expansions of Neverwinter Nights 1 however. Throne of Bhall expansions in BG2 was also very good. If BG3 brings out DLC and expands on things I think there's a lot it could improve on.
One of the mindflayers I like in BG3 is Omicron. He's a mindflayer that's open minded enough to not see things in black and white. So here's my argument about how most mindflayers aren't as smart as they pretend. Why aren't the leaders mantaining an open mind if they're oh so clever? I also argue that "Just trying to dominate the big floating brain" makes zero sense. HOW is that being done? BG2 explains those details (with and without mindflayers). BG3 isn't. Neverwinter Nights 1 does it better as well. It's the wording, specifically. Example: A player might do a speech check and the wording in the text of what the player chooses makes it clear that the player is trying CONVINCE the dragon by appealing to their sense of honesty. Even domniation is still convincing. It's crucial that detail is shown. Again, BG3 reduces the player to "Just try to dominate" the end boss. Legit. No elaboration about it. That's not how it works. The only way this makes any kind of sense is that it doesn't work. As in you can not ever succeed with this approach. It's what happens as well. Which might have been a good way to go about it IF there was some talk about how it doesn't work that way afterwards somehow. I've noticed BG3 is doing this a lot. It's covering "one" side of the story but somehow seems to leave out the "other" side. Like the player isn't allowed to question even though it would make perfect sense to do so. And I play with high charisma and diplomacy.
BG3 does well when it does things well. It lacks these "little touches" though. We also get "Hi Bhall. Bye Bhall" as if he's not even a key player? (little screen time). It just doesn't make sense. Who do you think is a bigger threat? A bunch of mindflayers sucking on brains, or the god of murder? Sure, show off mindflayers more, but not at the expense of what is quite literary on the cover of Baldur's Gate itself. Especially when it's made such a big deal of in BG2. We finally talk to Bhall and it's not even looking him directly in the eye. The only way I can be fine with this is if DLC elaborates on events. Which could go well considering a certain character may be linked to Bhall. It's at least a good setup for DLC. Just try not to be so breif with it. Bad guys need screen time too. It's part of why BG2 (and BG1) was so well praised. We got to see them more. Know them. If it's "hit and bye" then it's lacking. If DLC elaborates with Bhall then it makes sense and can be pulled off. But there's no salvaging that big floating brain that has little screen time and died moments after. Which we never get to have a meaingful conversation with. Case in point, let the player get to know the enemy more. And have more options then "Save the world" or "Destroy world". Have those options, sure, but where's the intebtween or what the player manipulates beyond what is presented? I could do that in Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights 1. Dragon Age Origons origins not so much. And I think this is a large part of the problem. Because at this point the odler games that did things well are decades old while newer game lack options more. Mass Effect games can do it well, but that's more sci fi then fantasy. And suffers from the same "One forced ending in different variations" trap. As a result people are going to be more ignorant about the comptuer games that have these little touches done well. For example, each and every familiar in Neverwinter Nights 1 (expansions. not base game) were designed to have unique interactions. A hellhound has that gruff "Don't mess with me" attitude. A fairy dragon tells riddles and wants to play. A different small dragon will do it differently. So on and so forth. Little touces like this are completely absent in BG3 altogether. We get the owlbear and the dog, but the number of familurs and animal companions alone is drastically reduced from past games. Let alone the interactions with them. Why are game made decades ago doing it better? Why are games made decades ago having more familuers, animals companions and shapeshifting forms? I always was of the midn that fe dumbs things down too much. This is only proving it. I want MORE options. Not less. Limiting things more and more (which 5e seems to be guilty of the most) only puts me off D&D. But I know D&D isn't the problem. How people are approaching D&D is. Instead of "Go along with most people and bandwagons" try getting more creative. Some youtube vids have stated how the devs are trying to please everything and I consider that a mistake. So I'm stressing it here. What you might hear less is how people often lose interest in D&D because of that "play it safe" approch. Because all that's done is "play it safe". If all that is done is what is "normal" and "expected" then people lose interest. I would have been more engaged with a plot about more then just the mindflayers. Instead all we get is mindflayers. But worse then that, mindflayers that seem to want to take over the world. That's the worst possible plan they could have. At least on their own. Maybe if they had other races fighting with them with tadpoles in just the leaders heads it would work out. "Control the leadership, have gnolls and drow and whatever else fighting with them. Instead it's JUST a mindflayer invasion. From a logical standpoint (and keep in mind being logical is what mindflayers are all about) all this serves to do is show mindflayers as a target. It's putting a bullseye on yourself and saying "Here I am. Come attack me." It doesn't seem like a smart or clever thing to do. Only a fool would not consider that they can be beaten if you brag about your plans. Which is exactly what that big floating brain does. I'm not getting the impression that I'm against a smart powerful threat. I'm getting the impression that I'm up against an idiot with an overflated ego. The elder God is Legacy of Kain pulls it off (ironically another boss that consumes a lot). This boss does not. I think a good part of that is because we got to know the boss in Legacy of Kain. In pretty much every game in the series. There's no tension here. There's no drama or flare. There's just "hi boss. Die boss". Unless taking the cheesy (and it really is cheesy) siding with it to control the world ending. The companions are even fist pumping like morons. I just don't find it believable. It's too forced and not making immersive sense.
Another thing that comes across as forced is some of the NPC interactions being helpful a little too quickly and suddenly. It's not that they're being helpful and convinced. It's how they do it with a smile ono their face and are too quick with cooperating. Let's take the goblin with Volo in the cage for example. "Here are the keys. Take him for a walk." Ok, why is this goblin offering a random human to take the prisoner for a walk and seeming happy about it? They actually seem alright for a goblin (who we're basicaly forced to murder hobo if killing the leader btw). But maybe make them a bit more suspect at first. Another example would be the guard with the caravan faction who gives the keys with a wide smile on their face. He's a little too happy for someone that was cowering in fear seconds ago. It just seems like the game could slow down at times. Let things sink in for a moment or two.
The game also seems a bit afraid to dive into "how evil can be done well". Though I have to say, I do enjoy the interactions with companions when they get hostile and manage to smooth things over (or even not). That part is very well done. Evil wise however I have a great example. From the game of Pathfinder: Wrath of the Rightious. The companiono of Wenduag. This is an example of a campaion where evil characters can be done well. The actress also played one of the main characters in the previous pathefinder game as well, so that's why they play the character so effectively. It's "evil" but also "conflicted" without "good" or "black and white". It seems like this is lacking on Baldur's Gate 3. Even Wenduag will consider murder hobo, but the player can influence the outcomes. There's also a bloodthristy dwarf in Baldur's Gate 2 who is a bit on the chaotic evil side, but he'll have a little moment with the player before fighting the last boss in Throne of Bhall. Like it or not there are people in the world that will be chaotic and want the world to burn. But that doesn't mean they can't be loyal. In contrast we can't do that with the the drow in Baldur's gate 3. Nor does there seem to be much in the way of more evil companions. Which is something past Baldur's Gate games did. I want to stress that other D&D comptuer games that have done some things well could help with how to do things well that the devs seem too afraid to get into. And trust me, if they're reluctant to have higher levels in BG3 they are afraid of upsetting players. Which I am somewhat understandable about, but at the same time I don't think playing it safe and limiting options is helping either. If anything I think it's important to take more risks and learn from mistakes while trying to present as many options for the player as possible. Otherwise it just results in stagnation and limited options. If people are so afraid of more options that they become more limited then that's resulting in less options for the player.
Finally long rest. It's handled poorly IMO. But it might work with a few changes. It breaks immersion basically. I can just have a quick nap in a threateing area in the heart of a spider lair? And I need to sleep just to wildshape after getting a bag in exploding mushrooms? I can't play around with wildshapes more without resting, which, I want to remind you, requires going to camp (which is going to be a loading screen) and then having to use the camp to rest twice. All just to change one shape to play around with it when a short rest could do it. Maybe if short rest restored a wildshape and lower spell slots (for mages as well as warlocks) it could work. As it stands it's too fiddly. Camp supplies seems fine though. I also want to point out how Pathfinder: Wrath of the Rightous handles resting. It seems to handle it better somehow. It wasn't "as forced". Yet is still important. Maybe because supplies were more limited. The game even has a Darkest Dungeon approch with it where enemies are tougher without resting. It's not just spell slots and health. When lacking sleep in real life you're going to be slower. In terms of thinking, reaction timing, etc. Do more with that. -1 to dex if not sleeping. Sometihng like that. It doesn't make sense that a mage would get tired and a fighter can just chug healing potions without sleep. Because of how long rest is handled in BG3 and because higher level spells aren't in the game, I'm not incentivised to play magic classes. Others seem to not like how long rest is handled in the game as well. Perhaps if players were able to have access to the higher level spells and such it would be worth the "extra steps", but as it stands I've had to do extra fiddlywork just to try out wildshapes. Or play around with spells just to test them and try them out. Meanwhile I can play Neverwinter NIghts 1 and play around with everything I please in an instant. I can see what things do before I commit to a playstyle. Even if that might mean having to make a fresh character. Which is strange considering BG3 has a character that lets the player respect and change class without starting a new character. Again, one of those "Half right yet half missing" situiations. The abilility to change class and respec is a good idea, but without the player being able to try things more easily, which past games have done, then it makes it difficult to try things out first. Everything about BG3 has this "It almost has it done perfectly" vibe yet falls just short somehow. At least that means the game is on the right track. It just seems to lack certain details that can enhance it. Or otherwise could slow down and not oversize everything.
I haven't gotten into how Powerful godlike beings can be balanced well but I think I'll save that for another topic. Suffice to say it brings more responsibility and consequences. You can be the most powerful on the face of the planet but no one is immune to the truth. The worst enemy is yourself and that might be what BG3 tried to show. But BG2 already did it so much better. So a different plotline may have worked better. Can still do something with DLC though. Bring in the higher levels, add the little touches, and flesh things out. It's what past RPG games have done and it's worked well so far. So Baldur's Gate 3 still have opportunity to improve. This will only happen with more risks and and not sticking your nose too closely to 5e. Treat a comptuer game like a comptuer game. Not a tabletop.
I seem to have had more options spellcaster wise in the older games then in BG3. And more familiars in Neverwinter Nights 1. Where are my small dragon companions? Or maybe that's a mage/warlock one which I haven't tried in BG3 yet. Even if I could though the problem is I can't interact with them and talk to them and play with them like I could in Neverwinter Nights 1. Which is something I really enjoyed. It made them be more then just another combat pawn. BG3 only does it with the dog and the owlbear, but they're not class familiars or animal companions. Both "big" touches and "little" touches are both important. Now that the games story is done it's a good opportunity to work on that while adding a new story with an expansion.
That's all I can think of. There's likely more I could come up with if I put my mind to it, but I think I've covered enough for now. Keep in mind with how old other RPG games are people will be less aware of them. Baldur's Gate 2 alone is a decade old. Neverwinter Nights 1 goes back even further to the year 2002. Currently Baldur's gate 2 still holds the crown. That could change if Baldur's Gate 3 manages to bring out an expansion and fleshes things out though. I'd like to see the game expand on what's already been done. Because despite its flaws I do see a lot of potential. I think it's mostly the ending itself that's throwing things off. "Bigger" isn't always better. A lessons past Baldur's gate games seem to have kept in mind. The treat doesn't come from the size and ego. It comes from knowing the enemy is quite literary inside the players head. Which is exactly what happens in Baldur's gate 2. None mindflayers have already done it better. If you can't beat the past Baldur's Gate then take things in a different direction. Some organization that was manipulation the mindflayers perhaps. That's old and powerful yet kept unknown and hidden. Because lying low works better then bringing attention to yourself. I think a plot along those lines would work. Imagine a faction that manipulates mindflayers and gods while being mortal yet still having the upper hand.
