Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is BG3 bad for the genre?

I have to disagree, the same story told via the Divinity world would have been well received, no doubt but the use of the name recognition for DnD and BG sent it to new levels. Without 5E and that name recognition the game would not have been nearly as financially successful or had as deep of market penetration.


I do not disagree, BTW in this case "production value" means looks pretty. However I am not sure with BG3 we did get both. We got high production value for sure but a deep game? BG3 resparked my passion for CRPGs. It had waned some over the years, I am sad to say. But BG3 got me going again full tilt. I am right now 100 hours into Kingmaker, on a first run through. I feel like Kingmaker is MUCH deeper than I found BG3. That is not a ditz on BG3, but Kingmaker makes me feel more like I am involved in a grand table top campaign. It lacks the polish, there is no doubt but I find the NPCs more interesting and engaging and story line more cohesive and compelling. This is AFTER 4000 hours of BG3. So saying BG3 has both depth and polish to me seems incorrect. Again not saying it is bad, I mean like I said over 400 hours and still playing it.


You actually just made my argument for me. Your correct the mistake they made was to try and repeat a formula to draw away a player base that was well invested. A solo play game means you do not need to draw away an audience and so cloning the basis of the success makes PERFECT sense.

Speaking of "looking pretty", I will say this for BG3. They are worlds beyond as far as how the game looks. It is such an improvement from BG2, and many other ones.
The only comparable one I can think of is Assassins Creed Odyssey.

No, BG3 *is* the poster-child for high production value but shallow depth. Diluted 5e mechanics are as shallow as one can possibly get. The only next step below is no mechanics at all.

Oh, and D:OS mechanics are no better. Just load up on a couple of key ranged abilities on every single party member and then pew pew pew. That's the game.

You are talking from the point of view of a CRPG veteran, of course BG3 will feel shallow to you. This is an extreme stance when you consider that pretty much no one has played this genre before. At best the most in depth RPG most people have played is maybe Elden Ring, Skyrim or Witcher 3, games where you can cruise through by casually tapping two buttons and collect generic +2 damage gear. By comparaison, BG3 is very deep, from a gameplay standpoint and especially from a narrative one with its branching story.
To get back to the topic title, we can absolutely say that Larian games are "bad" for that fringe player base who takes pride in playing the most obtuse game possible. But at some point you have to realize that CRPG games doesn't have to be shackled by that arbitrary criteria, just like FPS became more appealing than Quake.

This genre has always had a strong following. It has been around since the EARLIEST days of computer gaming. In fact computer gaming owes a lot to RPGs, with early computer gamers being taken mostly from the strategy gaming and DnD communities. I understand your point of his perspective but to dismiss the perspective of the CORE community for RPGs is just wrong.


Your premise is accurate, however it does NOT negate his point.


No one is saying the genre should be shackled, but is watering down a genre the best thing for it? Sure you might increase mass appeal but at the expense of your core community? What is wrong with focusing on a core community? Why do we feel every game needs to be for everyone? Why can we not have games with very specific targets instead of games with no real focus?

EXACTLY!!

This is very much my core criticism. And we are seeing this same trend in every form of entertainment, from TV shows to movies to music to fiction novels and amazingly sometimes even sports! And now, very tragically, also video games (and specifically RPGs). It is all about oversimplifying/dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator as the way to maximize your audience.

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. You see "oversimplification" and "dumbing down", I see streamlining and refinement of the genre. Regardless of who is right I am very glad that BG3 is that way. I spent some amazing time with dozens of friends who would have never touched a CRPG otherwise. And I don't see them as "the lowest common denominator", far from it.

In my experience, mass entertainment has not been dumbed down. It has always been dumb. It is more likely that people refine their tastes and become more sophisticated as they leave their childhood behind.

Eh, I'd say it's pretty inaccurate. Skyrim sure, Witcher 3 and Elden Ring, no so much.
They both have branching paths/choices and endings and frankly, more interesting than BG3's choices being good vs dumb bad. They also have more endings than BG3 had on release too.
And while not as mechannically complex, they both require as much, if not more, thought put into a build or fighting a boss. Not to mention the amount of items and abilities you can get as well (Morso for ER than W3).

Either way, was just abit perplexed at those game's being used as a comparison for being "shallow" RPGs, but in keeping with the current topic:

Elden Ring also didn't really compromise on it's genre to get mass appeal either. Fromsoft, even if I might hate part of their formula, took their Dark Souls games and chucked it into an Open world format, added a few new things while not really simplifying much in the process.

Edit: Ignoring whether or not the combat is "dumbed down" or "streamlined", I'd consider the character's writing and the story itself (the lack of interesting alternate pathways, the inconsistencies in the plot and some aspects of the companions) to be a compromise from the cRPG genre.

But also, as another comparison, didn't really add much to the open world genre just like how I don't think BG3 will do much to change RPGs either.

Sorry the premise I was agreeing with is that most people see an RPG via the action adventure model of RPG and not the classic RPG of group/party as well as turn based.


I agree with you, the CRPG genre typically has deeper story to them than the action adventure style games.

Yeah, I must admit that I was unjust to these games (although not for Skyrim, it compromised badly in every directions). My point that was players have longed for a game where they have to actively think about how to write their own story. Gear and dialogue options have to be chosen with consideration whereas TW3 very much underwhelmed me with its character progression and Elden Ring story is just an excuse to beat cool looking bosses. They are both amazing games though, the depth just isn't focused in the same place.

Fair, should've probably replied to the original post.

Also, just incase, that 2nd quote was in regards to BG3 feeling compromised to appeal to mass audiences, although I guess some of it is due to how they do things like having to work around including Origin characters or multiplayer.


Fair, but I can't help but think Larian could've done a better story if they chose a simplier script, like using a DnD Adventure Path as a base (e.g. ToEE (Only one I know off)) and put their own small spin on it + include their immersive sim aspects, so people can go wild with writing their own story, but still having that consistent plot throughline.
At this point, 3 games in, I don't trust them anymore to make a good original story.

Although, to ER/Fromsoft's defense (Even if I hate it), they generally do make interesting worlds for their games, it's just that in order to experience it you've gotta read 500 random items.

From a game design perspective, focusing on a core community can lead to stagnation. Where you rehash everything the same way because "That's what the playerbase wants"

A prime example of this would be my feelings towards ARPG's. A genre that has forever stagnated but gets lauded by hardcore fans of the genre BECAUSE it refuses to evolve (So it's forever braindead 1 button mashing infinite lifesteal loot fiesta)

While I'd personally like to see the genre move towards things like twinstick controls (Allowing more mobility and also helping me not get RSI because LMB does literally everything from moving to looting to targeting to attacking...), with more focus on smaller amounts of enemies but that actually present a threat so you have engaging combat (Especially if builds and itemization didn't just pump up a single skill to being godlike so everything else is useless in comparison) throughout the game and no stupid lifesteal bullcrap where your defense is "Stand there facetanking everything because you pump out so much damage than 0.3% lifesteal from a skill/item lets you heal up 4000% of your total HP per 0.1s"

But instead, we just get copy/paste the same tired systems, because "Core community"

From a business perspective... Well this one is obvious. Game for everyone = Everyone gives money to play it. Game for niche community = Only niche community gives money to play it.


I dunno about that... Sure, they have more endings than BG3 and W3 had more choices. But to be fair, ER had most of its endings being the same one just you have a different colour filter over the camera as you sit on the throne. It's only the Age of the Stars and Lord of Frenzied Flame endings that did something different.

As for thought into builds and fighting bosses? Ehh... Builds are pretty simple. Stack damage stats. (ER get some Vit and End to your comfort level). Boss fights... Hit boss. Dodge boss attacks. Rinse and repeat. Hardly more complex than BG3's boss beatdowns.

The only notable aspect about W3/ER combat was since it was real time, player reactions are put to the test while in BG3 it's simply a test of rolling a D20 (Or often in my case, a D1...)

In general, games don't really do much in terms of boss complexity. It's mostly just the same old variations of "Avoid bad stuff, hit bad guy" across all genres. From the top of my head, the only game with notable boss battles is Shadow of the Colossus. Since the entire game is literally about creative boss battles where you mix puzzle and platforming elements together to get to the giant monster weakspots and stab them.

I'm not sure what that fella is griping about, possibly wanting some kind of challenge in a game that's supposed to be fun, but decrying the sad state of affairs of society in general...?
That subject has be the focus...and main gripe... of everybody that fought in WW2...we are all pathetic, weak, simpering fools that wouldn't last a week in the woods...
And certainly weren't the men that used to be!!!!

And, we're probably going to pay for it big time, sooner or later.

LOL speak for yourself. Was only a few years back I did a camping trip for a week and we lived off the food we hunted, fished or gathered. We only packing in one days worth with us.

I assure you, you are a vast minority, my friend. I grew up hunting too, but I'm a lot older than most here. I have long thought that cutting the eastern seaboard power grid would be the smartest for those who wish us harm.

OH I understand. I saw a video, seems not that long ago, where they took two young people and gave them a series of task with no access to cell phones or the internet. Was hilarious as they did not know how to look up information at a library, actually had issues with a phone book and OMG the map was way to much for them.

Dear Lord, yes!
I have watched the young folks around me struggle with a map, and wonder how can that be? But I'm not patting myself on the back by any measure, because I've certainly let myself go, as I love sitting at the computer playing games rather than trekking the hills.

Game devs are not obligated to make games that generally are at best a modest success. A game that the core community doesn’t like was not made at their expense.