Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Thank you Larian!

This forum appears to be overrun with the vocal minority of haters which somehow always happens when a truly great game is released. I want to do what little I can to restore justice.

First of all, I'd like to thank the development team! I happen to know a thing or two about software development, just enough to understand how difficult it is to implement something so ambitious so flawlessly. I loved pretty much everything about D:OS2, so I knew I could expect a high quality game, yet BG3 is still mind-blowing. It is the new standard, and - like it or not - many people including myself will compare all future CRPGs to it.

I've been playing video games for nearly 30 years. I've touched hundreds of titles old and new (particularly, did multiple playthroughs of every Infinity Engine game), and here's my verdict: BG3 is one of the best games in history.


I don't feel like I need to write yet another complete review. There are dozens of those already. However, since the haters constantly push certain myths, I'd like to debunk some of those:


Myth #1) BG3 isn't D&D.

As any DM worth their salt will confirm, BG3 is the very essence of D&D. D&D encourages DMs to interpret the rules creatively and employ house rules when it suits their needs. Blasting a game for not blindly following source books is one of the stupidest and most anti-D&D things one can do. Let me remind you: Black Isle Studios and BioWare were very liberal with their implementation of the ruleset as well. The Infinity Engine games weren't even turn-based. These days they are recognized as timeless classics and must-plays for anyone interested in D&D-based video games. Ironically, even now after 20+ years of fame, there are still haters that claim that BIS and BioWare were wrong. And that's the worst thing about haters. They don't know when to shut up. They never admit defeat even when it's completely obvious.


Myth #2) Solasta is better.

Solasta is best described as a modern turn-based remake of Icewind Dale. It's a very linear very combat-heavy heroic good-alignment adventure with no free exploration (everything is 100% story-driven), no consequences (no real choices either) and no interaction between party members. I did a complete playthrough. If it were bad, I'd quit, but it was OK. Much like IWD and IWD2 were OK games but most definitely not better than BG or BG2.


Myth #3) Pathfinder games are better.

I've only played Kingmaker thus far. From what I've seen, I doubt that WotR is too different. Kingmaker was a very solid experience (or should I say a very buggy release thoroughly fixed by many, many patches). It's mostly the middle ground between the rigid linearity of Solasta and the unbridled freedom of BG3.

Pros:
- Adjustable difficulty. You can make it really challenging by pushing the sliders all the way to the right. Then you have to find unconventional and creative solutions to beat combat encounters where the odds are very much against you.
- Lots of exploration. It would feel even better if the main quest wasn't on a timer, but there is enough time to visit all optional zones.
- Nice and rich story (it's one of the Pathfinder official adventure paths).

Cons:
- Boring companions. A free tip to Owlcat: it's good to make a story based on a P&P campaign, it's bad to make companions based on the examples from Player's Handbook. A bunch of walking tropes and cardboard cutouts isn't exactly what people dream of traveling with.
- Repetitive gameplay. Yes, it's something unavoidable in a huge game, but there are ways to keep things interesting. Kingdom-building is supposed to be your refuge from the endless prebuff-fight-fight-fight-rest routine, but it's not quite enough. The game could benefit from having more non-combat RP content.
- Shallow side-quests. BG3 just hands down wins in this category.

Overall, Kingmaker is close to BG3 in terms of overall quality. It has different strong and weak sides (and I very much suspect that the same applies to WotR). My point is: those who say "Owlcat good, Larian bad" deliberately choose to ignore the strong sides of BG3: unparalleled player freedom (in and out of combat) for a non-sandbox game, origins, meaningful exploration, impactful choices and fantastic itemization that results in even more freedom.

I'm sorry. I can understand wanting to look on the positive side, but this is more than a little hyperbolic. BG3 already got ( far more than it deserved, frankly) plenty of praise in the press. Its failures are not nitpicky ones; they're humongous failures with the narrative, combat, and basic functionality of the game. No game that has the problems that BG3 has deserves to be called "one of the best games in history," and you can't strawman the criticism of it away.



For example with this. The criticism is not that BG3 does not strictly follow the 5e ruleset. The complaint is that the custom changes Larian made to it have really unbalanced things. Some things Larian did were fine (I actually like the custom weapon actions.) But they totally broke the action economy with changes to haste and how bonus actions could be used, and they totally threw off the challenge by showering your party with absurdly powerful magical items, while also inexplicably massively nerfing control spells from their tabletop versions. This has led to combat that's dominated by martials stacking up big numbers, and to combat that is *really* far too easy, even on the highest difficulty, without even needing to do any sort of meta build. It commits one of the cardinal sins any RPG can commit: Combat becomes *much less interesting* as you get to higher levels. You can't just sweep this aside as "Oh foolish people just want strict 5e tabletop rules!" Changes to the tabletop rulesets are fine, and in many cases necessary for computer games. That does not mean *any change one could make to the system is good.* People are dissatisfied because Larian made a series of *bad* changes that severely impacted how interesting the combat was.



I have my own problems with Kingmaker (and I actually like Kingmaker much more than WoTR) but I have to take issue with this. I actually like quite a few companions in Kingmaker much more than I like any of the BG3 companions.

imo, BG3 tried to address one of the major weaknesses of CRPGs: NPC "liveliness." In most other CRPGs (and Kingmaker as well), *all you get to look at* for a NPC is a paper doll, a portrait, and some voiced lines (often with not the greatest VAs). My theory is: No matter *what* the writing of the character is like, this simple fact makes the NPC *less memorable and less likable* than they would be if they had more expressiveness.

Which is what BG3 tried to do. They hired great voice actors; they had mocap and you could see the character's changing expressions as you talked to them. I think this went MILES to making their characters more likable, despite the fact that, welllll....BG3 companions, going purely by their writing, can often be obnoxious and their stories have a lot of narrative dissonance. (Gale particularly gets on my nerves, he's a humongous Mary Sue imo. But I was struck by the fact that despite the fact that I think his writing is terrible I actually still like him as a character, pretty much entirely because of his VA and personal mannerisms.)

But regardless, I actually think if the Kingmaker companions got the BG3 treatment - high quality VAs and animated dialogue - a lot of them would be much more memorable and likable than BG3 companions.

Did yu Guys Beat the Game ?
Did yu Guys actually reach act 3 to see how unfinished it is ?
Did yu Guys Beat the Game at Least 4 times to see that all the endings are the same no matter what ?
Did yu Guys See that No Matter what yu Choose in act 1,2 dosent matter at all at the end ?
Dont Get me Wrong bro.. i Love the Game and the Game is Great.. but the Fact is
the Game its Unfinished Like Any other.. and people just Praise and Praise and Praise Larian for that ?
So thats kinda really hard for me to be OK..
When this game is actually just like any other that Released in the last Years..
(and i Really love the Game but the Only part Finished and Worth Playing its Act 1 and 2..)

and the Worst Part.
In Lounch till 2.0 the game was Playable..
Now after 3.0 Many, Many, Many people have been reporting Nom Stop game braking bugs in animations, Quests and more.
and this is getting worse evryday they dont say nothing about it.
(and im not saying this becouse i want to Be Toxic or some Shit like that man.. i Just want to have a full experience for the Price i Pay for this game and in my country that shit dosent cost 60,100 bucks yu know.. the coin in my country its almost worthless compare to Dollar so i Pay a LOT for this game.. and i want to have the Experience i pay for.. its just That.. can yu actually understand something like that or not ?)
Or maybe yu are such a Fun Boy of Larian that they can never do Wrong on your Eyes ?
Becouse in my Opinion its like Buying a F. Car and that shit come without wheels.
and yu have to wait for then to gave yu the Wheels so can yu Finally enjoy the Car.. Great.

Saying the Pathfinder companions are a "bunch of walking tropes and cardboard cutouts" while praising the BG3 ones is certainly a statement...
BG3s companions are flashy because Larian threw money at VA and cinematics. But they are all style with only weak substance.

I also find some other conclusions you make rather far fetched.
BG3 offers more impactful choices? BG3 does the same thing as the ME triology and make choices seem impactful when they are in fact not.
Most choices are limited to one act. In BG no one xares if the shadowlands are healed or not. You can kill off some sidequest characters without replacement, but in the end that only robs you out of some XP and loot, but doesn't affect the story. And the ending is mostly just an RBG button press with the only choice that matters us getting the hammer or not.
Even things which look very important at all like how treat the emperor or if you use tadpoles are not really choices as they affect nothing.
And if you consider the selection of your mythic path in WotR a choice them oh boy does it blow BG3 out of the water, especially when you compare Aeon to other mythics.

And praising BG3s itemizations is a strange choice considering its those items which are way outside of what the D&D system is designed to handle which destroy the balance in BG3 and make late game combat rather boring

I mean, this is probably bait for these "Haters" but imma bite cause I'm bored and curious.

Personally, I morso hate the discourse around it rather then the actual game at this point; if it had been given a fairer score in the 80s (for a AAA game) and not hailed as this "new standard for the industry" or "best RPG ever" I wouldn't be here trying to find out why it is touted as such.
All I've found is that some people like certain companions, the "immersive-sim" aspect, whenever you get to use race/class for some meaningless dialogue and people thinking there are meaningful consequences.

Anyway, firstly:

Not really, in terms of setting said standard for the industry; the game released very buggy, as seen with the 3000ish? bug fixes across 3 patches and is still very buggy with new bugs cropping up from Patch 3.

In terms of the genre, not really. BG3 has a very below/average story compared with PoE or WotR and is definitely inferior to WotR for choice and consequences. It does it's one thing well, the "immersive-sim" aspect for about an Act.

----

And secondly, the crux of the argument of whether BG3 is this "New standard for RPGs" is here:
(or atleast yours, but I see a similar sentiments all over the place)

Is this truely enough to make it the "Best RPG ever"?
Where there is alot more negatives; the average (maybe below average) story which is also abit of a mess, little to no consequences, companions are abit average (help up with good VO) and the unbalanced combat.

And out of those you've mentioned, I'd somewhat agree on:
- Unparalleled player freedom (in and out of combat): The "out of combat" freedom aspect kinda disappears past Act 1 as in useful interactions with "Speak with Dead" or "Animal Speaking" interactions.
- Itemization: It's definitely fun finding useful stuff while exploring that synergises with other items and whatnot to make the rather simple DnD system abit more interesting but does kinda skew the balance towards the player.

Disagree
- Origins: Outside of Durge (which could've just been Tav anyway), I don't find them very interesting characters to play as, especially if it's maybe for some extra lines which won't change anything in the story and the effort in making them would have been best used elsewhere.
- Impactful choices: ha, no. Most choice and consequences usually add up to getting an extra useless ally for the final battle, losing a merchant or the character just dying. I'd like to know some examples where I might be wrong tho, where choices you make elsewhere can change the main or a companion's story which is what WotR excels at.

I'd agree with "meaningful exploration". I'd also add the combat was fun (but not good) and Companion VO was good; however, that's still not enough.

Just to clarify: I'm not here to argue. I'm here to inform the devs that there are people out there who love the games they make. Few will come here to express their gratitude but rest assured we feel it.

Like I said in the OP, the haters will never shut up, but their efforts are futile. A tiny minority no matter how vocal will be irrelevant in the long run. In 20 years BG3 will still be remembered, played and praised, but you don't have to wait that long. Might as well wear your laurel wreaths proudly right now. You've earned them.

It's puzzling to me how anyone can misconcieve the level of critical engagement with a game that you find here on the forums as them being overrun by haters. Anyway, justice is restored I suppose.

Remember kids, if someone disagrees with you, just call them a hater and you'll be set.

Huh, well that was a waste of time then especially when Larian's been getting praise across the net and I doubt they read here much.
What was the point in posting this then if your not interested in arguing your points, other than giving the game more vapid praise?

Go to Reddit for that lol.

Well Guys Just Ignore it..
Theres no Point in trying to argue with someone that already have their mind Set Made of yu know ?
So yeah Good One Larian.. yu are the Best and we are all wrong..
Becouse we are not satisfied enought with act 1,2 of the game..haha
Looks Like we are just a Bunch of Haters Piece of shit that dosent deserve the air we breath..

I don't know, I think it will follow the same pattern as other Larian games. They generate a lot of hype because they're very fun in the areas where they are polished, despite their flaws; but the fact that their games have a repeating pattern of declining in quality partway through the game means that their legacy has short legs, because knowledge of that drop in quality makes replaying the game much less appealing. I know that I, at least, find myself replaying Larian games far less than I've replayed other rpgs, even though arguably, during the good parts of Larian's games, I had more fun with them.

If Larian can one day push through and make a game that retains the same quality in the second half that it has in the first half, they may make a game that will be talked about for decades. If they can do it while at the same time getting better character and story writers, it may be one of the best games in modern history, even if it includes all the other flaws Larian games tend to have. BG3 just falls very short imo.

I think "hater" is a very strong word for people who have some issues with the game. I had fun for the most part, but I do think the game has received excessive praise that is really not deserved, certainly not based on my playthroughs and experience. That said, I understand that this is all very subjective. I value balanced mechanics and C&C - Larian doesn't - not really. From a C&C perspective, The Emperor arc shows that - as has been pointed out here and elsewhere. Others have mentioned other cases where there is the illusion of consequences, but it's just that.

Mechanically, as a 5e game, BG3 is weak - 5e already suffers from balance issues (esp with MC), and they amplified that massively by ignoring things they didn't like, especially balancing mechanisms. For me, that is not good - I hugely prefer WotR which does a very good job of implementing very complex mechanics, mostly faithfully. 5E is so simple, and they messed it up. This was pointed out again and again in EA - for years - but had little impact. They also have also this verticality, but they can't do true 3D - unlike solasta where you can actually fly/levitate to stationary 3D position and rain down fireballs, safe from melee. That is just very cool - its very disappointing that hugely expensive and well resourced AAA D&D game can't manage that. Fly is just a glorified jump/hover (+ copied directly from D:OS - as anyone can see if you played those games).

I was completing another run as a regular dextrous monk - avoiding 'tavern brawler' - and after getting to Act 3...I just ran out of steam. I can't summon the enthusiasm to play again. WotR I have played to completion 3 times (at least) and enjoyed each playthrough hugely - especially mythic path variation. Yes, a lot of combat - too much perhaps - but it feels closer to what I think bg3 experience should have felt like. In my view, if you stripped the VO + cinematics from BG3, its scores would plummet.

Having criticisms and voicing them doesn’t make one a hater, but there is a small, dedicated number of posters who visit this forum constantly if not daily, just to remind the tiny number of regulars that they still do not like the game.

It is honestly pretty bizarre behavior, and I can’t wrap my head around it.

I think, it is uncalled to call people hater, just because they have some suggestions and critique. I would assume, most people are in this forum, because they find the game engaging, but pointing out stuff, that could need polish (like for example the ending, some companion stories - the Karlach thread isn't exploding for nothing and Halsin is downright creepy, missed opportunities etc) doesn't mean, that people are hating on the game, just that they want to make a story, they like, better.
A lot of people , me included, are here since EA, and I think, it is only fair, to give our two cents. Calling people with different opinions hater is the ultimate killer agrument to drown discussion - and not very productive.

Hi folks, I suggest we move along now.

Though I do agree it’s much better to just make the positive case for our own positions, or at least argue against positions with which we disagree, rather than criticise the individuals who take them. Especially when we’re being very general and likely to catch lots of folk we might not intend to in the crossfire.

And as long as people are mindful of forum rules and are willing to engage constructively with other gamers here, they’re welcome to express any opinion on the game they like. It’s always an option to just ignore posts that we don’t think it’s interesting or worthwhile to engage with.

You're mistaken. This a forum that allows constructive critique and that critique helped shape the game you love. Did you know that Larian planned to release a DnD game WITHOUT REACTIONS? That draft one allowed people to heal themselves inside of combat by eating pig heads?

The game got better because fans provided constructive feedback.


You need to check out the WOTR and travel with the companion Daeran. He gives Astarian a run for his money. This isn't to say that all of the companions are great but I really liked Daeran, Ember and Seelah.

And the end boss of WOTR was sooooo much better than the squid and brain it's not funny. I like both games but WOTR is the better despite Faerun being the better setting.

Undoubtedly. However, I see many posts without any constructive content on the forum. What I find particularly harmful and unacceptable are suggestions that WotC shouldn't grant Larian the rights to make any more D&D games. How is this sort of attitude constructive? How will it help to improve anything? It's just trolling of the worst possible kind and nothing else.

Yes, I'll definitely play WotR, probably soon enough. I'm also going to replay Kingmaker, because it was actually a lot of fun and I'd like to try it in TB mode.

100%.
I would go on to say BG2 has more well written characters than the entire BG3 cast.

Why is it that I can replay Pathfinder Wotr, BG2, IceWindDale, Planescape Torment, PoE2 Deadire, Fallout 2, Disco Elysium...and still have tons of fun, yet with BG3 my second play-through was pure torture? Particularly after chapter 2.

Imagine taking away ALL VA and cinematics from BG3. Replace dialogue with text, and thing about the game content again.