Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General On contradictory and inconsistent feedback

A refrain that comes up fairly frequently regarding this kind of thing is that "players are good at finding problems and bad at finding solutions. I do think that there were at least a few things changed due to EA that were fundamentally positive, such as their change to how high ground worked and the inclusion of reactions. But I also think that Larian honestly didn't utlize the EA process as well as they could have. I think they could have done a better job of directing EA players to guide the sort of feedback they were looking for, being explicit about what things were on the table to be changed and what were not. Also I don't think you can blame EA for the choppy way the narrative turned out. I think that just comes down to Larian's lack of discipline. It's entirely possible that they could have gone into EA, never changed anything narratively, said outright that they were not looking for feedback on narrative, they would just do whatever they wanted to do in that regard. But they did not.

What can be said with some certainty is that whtether EA was good for the game or not, Larian seems to think it is, because they keep doing it.

Well, you can't blame ALL the rewrites on EA.

At least some of the rewrites were done because of Larian themselves (Daisy and Karlach for example)

Though, you can argue that without EA and thus the need to put together some sort of version of the game out early, they could spend a bit more time in pre-development so they could hash out things like characters and the main plot of the game BEFORE they start actually making the game and getting VA's involved (However, none of this would prevent them changing their minds mid-development anyway like with aforementioned Daisy and Karlach)

I suppose this might simply be a flaw within Larian themselves. That they're really, really, really bad at actually planning things out. They're more of a "Make it up as you go along" type, which means rewrites are common (Whether they're requested by EA players or not). Thus instead of having a good structured story and characters, it's more things are surface level great, but the depth is lacking because they're literally making stuff up as they're developing the game.

Entirely consistent about my desire for a larger party! Live fact check, I'm ready! hehe

I think it's somewhat unfortunate that NDA's have to exist and that they couldn't have introduced us to any of their spectacular performers until after the Full Release.

It would have made such a difference during EA when there were these long boring stretches for months on end with nothing much new and that feeling like 'ok is this game even happening anymore?' I mean there's playing and there's feedback, but seeing it take off like a rocket at launch was something else entirely. I could have used more of that from the getgo for sure.

The Panels from Hell were all like devs and designers playing at being entertainers, when they had Dev and actual entertainers, who are really incredibly entertaining, just held in reserve?

The whole nascent community that grew up post launch around that could have been cracking off a lot Earlier I think, and that might have lent the whole experience a bit more of those happy days vibes. Maybe it would have felt too forced in that case, hard to say, but I suspect it would granted the Early Access a more meaningful sense of 'access.' Like as if we were getting the backstage pass on that or something. I suppose in the end they still managed to peak at the right time, but it would have been fun to ascend a bit sooner.

This is a point well taken. I really believe things like the day/night cycle, the movement mechanic, and party size were never up for debate, yet they and other examples that could be named consumed a lot of EA debate time/energy that could have been directed elsewhere with a definitive statement from the developers.

As an aside if the toilet chain is part of their next release (which I fully assume it will be) I ain’t buying it lol.

My thoughts on the changes to characters due to feedback is that softening the characters to be more likeable--even though anyone with patience would know that characters have development and would soften over time if they liked Tav--is that it was a mistake. I still like SH, Lae'zel, and Wyll, but with SH and Wyll especially their changes made them feel less dynamic IMO. Something I admire about Bioware and Owlcat is they know who their characters are and allow them to be polarizing. Characters like Aribeth (NWN) Solas (Dragon Age), and Yrliet (Rogue Trader), for example, make some players want to kill them and some players adore them. And that's okay! One way or another, they're memorable.

Like I said, I do like the BG3 companions, and I think there's a place for feedback. However, I think feedback can ultimately weaken creative vision when it waters a character down in an effort for mass appeal. It's also weird to me that Larian and/or WotC was so concerned with making their companions likeable but on the flip side, completely butchered Viconia and Sarevok from BG2 in an effort to make them utterly unlikable. It feels like manipulation and I don't like being manipulated. Let a character be who they are and I'll make up my own mind.

We know that Halsin and the general personality rewrites of companions were because of EA and its quite possible that this also affected the Nightsong rewrites.
The, quite massive, change to turn tadpoles into a consequence free superpower late in development was I think also because of EA statistics of people not using them often.

Not sure what Informationen you have about the Daisy rewrites.

I also think the general hornyness of companions is also because of EA as Larian wanted to give EA players already some "action" in that regard.

Yes. SOME of the rewrites were directly related to EA feedback. Halsin, Wyll and the general personality of other companions were a result of EA feedback requesting for changes.


As far as I'm aware, there was no major feedback in regards to requests to change the nature of Daisy or tadpoles. This was a Larian decision.

It has literally been stated by developers, that Karlach having an Infernal Engine for a heart was a later rewrite because "They thought it was cool"

Meaning that not all rewrites are due to EA feedback.


Which means it was a Larian decision. Not players asking for more fanservice.

Heck, Halsin being a complete sex pest was entirely Larian too. Yes, people asked for him to be a companion. But it was Larian who decided to rewrite him in such a crude way (Which was actually a disappointment to many who wanted him to be a companion)

Even more so we have a situation where Larian's recent "One Year Statistics" showed that Shadowheart, the least horny Act 1 companion, was the most popular choice for the camp party. Which, outside of any data to suggest otherwise, is likely to have been true in EA. Meaning that Larian's decision to add in more horny wasn't particularly targetted towards what players wanted.

We gave a lot of feedback on how having a tickling time bomb in your character's head works poorly with the long rest mechanic, resulting in a weird story dynamic. Thats where the tadpole changes likely come from, they were not pulled out of thin air, I am sure. EA players were missing on a lot of content by going for the most logical and intuitive thing - which is avoiding the tadpole powers and resisting Daisy. IMO this particular feedback had a very positive impact on the game, it birthed an ingenious idea of making up a Dream Guardian and letting it be your protector. Dream Guardian advocates for using the tadpole, but is clear to separate themselves from the aberrations and tries to appeal to the most basic instincts: freedom, safety, strength. Daisy tried to pull some half-assed mysterious card, treating the MC like a power-hungry weirdo in denial, which had zero substance behind it.

They had romance stats in EA. Shadowheart and Gale were the most romanced I believe.

The effects of EA is not limited to EA players giving verbal feedback.
Larian heavily relies on user statistics to make decisions which they would not have without EA and also, the existence of the EA in itself influences as Larian kept changing Act 1 to keep EA players entertained, which included early heavy romances which might not have existed if there wasn't a need to give EA players some action.

In EA I was convinced that using Tadpoles and developing Superpowers was a slippery slope towards becoming an Illithid and a GAME OVER screen

I know, right? The whole tadpole dilemma was poorly executed and Daisy was clearly an inferior plot tool than the Dream Guardian. Again, I've only recently seen in a thread about an ideal version of BG3, a rather popular opinion, that Daisy actually was better for the game. Those contradictions are killing me, huh. It almost seems like being unnecessarily oppositional is people's thing nowadays.

Me too. There should be consequences for using the tadpoles, maybe you will become illithid in any case or die or something else. As it is, every HM run uses those tadpoles, because all you get is an ugly face.

Mind you, I have nothing against the scenario I've outlined. I've seen such a mechanism in at least one game from over 20 years ago. Give in to your Dark Urges and you become stronger, faster, etc. - as well as lose your humanity. And ultimately lose your PC
The trick was to use the Dark Powers as a boost/doping in difficult situations, but still remain human enough to complete the game.

Yeah, in my (successful) HM run I gobbled the Tadpoles like crazy (15!), because NO CONSEQUENCES. At the very least Larian could had punished Tadpole gobbling with lowered attractiveness to the opposite sex, erectile problems, having to eat 3x camp supplies due to imporved appetite, Scratch running off as you smell funny - ANYTHING, really.

A good thing that my next HM run (after patch 7?) will be a Gityanki party, no Lesser Races need apply, hence no Gaikh candy for us

Tbh I feed the tadpoles to Astarion and Minthara, they are willin gand I don't care how they look, so win-win

Because in EA that was the case.
Nere could mind control you when you overused the tadpole, Daisy got more aggressive when you did, the horrific messages when using the illithid dialogue options meant something and Omeluums ring actually had an effect on the tadpole.

All that got changed last minute, likely because less EA players used the original tadpole powers than they wanted, so Karian made them consequence free superpower to encourage their use.

That assumes that all of the team work on all of the content. While there is certinainly some overlap, I suspect the truth is far more complex than that. Every development I did manage to get a peak into (decumentaries, interviews etc.) tended to develop areas simultaneously - breaking bigger team, into smaller teams each developing and having creative control over their own part of the game, with oversight from above to make sure it all fits together.

I am also doubtful because act1 didn't change THAT much throughout EA. so I am confident they worked on subsequent areas throughout most if not all of the EA - there were mentions of amazing verticality of the city of Baldur's Gate very early into EA. There is also the assumption that feedback from EA didn't affect later areas. Probably biggest consumer of reasources was the actual release of EA build every couple months - but that's part of most development processes - publisher, showcase Demo's, playtesting builds - but a public, playable release probably took far more work than something shorter and more contained.

If EA had negative impact, it might have more to do with how the game is revealed, and Larian's commitment to the content before the game is finished. By keeping their cards hidden, they would have more freedom to change/cut things as they wish. Let's be honest here. A lot of complains have less to do with what we got (which isn't free of criticism) and more with what people were promised or imagined they will get after playing act1 over and over again over the years. Perhaps playerbase would be more forgiving if taking whole of the game at the same time, perhaps, Larian would be at liberty to change things more drastically for better continuity.


That I flat out disagree. IMO best changes in EA, were related to systems and gameplay and those affect the entire title. If things like disengage on jump, disengage as bonus action, advantage on high ground and backstab, automated reactions, hotbar-only UI and many, many other stuff that I am sure people mostly forgot existed by now were shipped with 1.0 BG3 would be a much, much worse game. It is of course impossible to guess what would and wouldn't make into final build without EA. But IMO thinking that EA affected act only would be naive.

Not to say that EA didn't benefit from two years of aggressive testing, but without it we would just get an untested act1 - not better tested acts 2&3.

There is also a matter of other benefits of EA - a major cash flow, proof of great interest in the title - which would encourage Larian to invest more into BG3 than what they might have planned initially - and possibly get additional funding from third parties to make the game bigger and better.

And I wasn't. It always sounded like unfulfillable promise made by devs who don't quite know yet where they are going with it. A lengthy, story driven RPG won't be cut short because you used a skill one too many times, just as you weren't threated by a timer of an illythid power. From the very beginning BG3 had "do what you want" philosophy, and there was no way Larian would lock you into "bad ending" or lock your progress because you dared to use one of the toys they gave you.

Whenever Emperor existed or not couple things were always clear to me - tadpole power are an equivalent of Source magic from D:OS2, we won't get rid of it throughout gameplay nor we are really threatened by it. The story will make a turn to Bhaal and BG1&2 events. Tadpole is mosty a narrative hook to push our character through the adventure (like being a Bhaalspawn, beind Godwoken, having Relic in Cyberpunk etc.) and won't have actually much impact in itself. Hmmm, maybe simply because I never believed Larian will deliver on ideas set up in act1, I was also not disappoined by what followed... in fact I thought it transitioned into act3 better than I feared.

Also light spoiler for upcoming endings:

Why would it be unfulfillable? Other RPGs managed to do something like this just fine. Mask of the Betrayer is a very good example of this.
And the EA implementation clearly showed that Larian initially designed the system for exactly that.
Larian even marketed the tadpole like that a few days before launch, suggesting there to be big consequences for overusing it. So basically a bait and switch.

I overall agree with this sentiment. I think Larian committed to some things way too early, and then changed some things, like Wyll and Karlach, way too late. It's been my personal pet theory that a lot of the story issues actually can be traced to them publically locking down the first scene of the game so far in advance (they used it as the reveal trailer) well ahead of EA even being released, and then as the story inevitably developed, that openning kind of stopped making sense. It's why we have strangeness like Gortash sending a whole nautiloid on what's supposedly a stealth mission, but that nautiloid also randomly attacks a city that has nothing to do with anything else in the plot and never gets brought up again even though it reasonably should.