Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Be careful with your references to other games

I strongly suggest everyone to not reference too heavily to other games, especially new and upcoming ones like Solasta, when asking for things to be put into BG3. Why?

Well. I do understand your reasoning of doing so, like "hey Larian, this company managed to do it in their game, so should you". But that way of arguing can very much backfire. badly. If enough players keep referencing things they miss in BG3 to Solasta or other similar games, the devs can, and probably will, start reasoning, "well if you like that game so much why don't you go play that and leave us to do our game the way we want it."

Any serious game developer wants to create a new experience with every game they produce and not a copy of another existing product. Mainly for two reasons. the pride in creating a new product and copyright infringement.
So naturally when they see a similar product to their own being created at the same time, they ofc, to win over as many buyers as possible, try to improve their product to the fullest but also, and I stress this, diversify their product from the competition.

So in the case where we miss a feature in BG3 that can be found in another game, instead of formulate it like "This game has this, and/or does it better than yours, can you add/fix that?" it's more constructive to explain what feature you would like to see in BG3 and, if possible, a suggestion to how that feat would be imported/function in the best possible way. And if you have to refer to another game, try to be a little...how should I put it....humble?
Form your sentence like this for example.

"So, I would first like to say that I love/like (X) and (Y) in BG3 but I really miss that (Z) is not in the game yet. I found that in game (A) they had (Z) but didn't do (X) as good as in BG3. Is it possible to add something similar to (Z) in the game? That would make it, in my opinion, a perfect product/the best of two worlds/vanilla and chocolate in smashing combo etc.

This is just a suggestion and if you feel you want to get to the point, skipping the pleasantries, that is ofc up to you

Solasta is an indie game with indie graphics and indie depth. There is nothing wrong with that and it will no doubt appeal to quite a few dnd fans just how meatboy was praised and loved by side scroller players. They will be successful and I hope they continue to make more games just like owl cat and pathfinder kingmaker, amazing game but only appealed to those who understood the rules and how to not die immediately to the first enemy.

Comparing BG3 to Solasta is like comparing a thanksgiving meal to a salmon sushi roll; one has something for everyone but may also have brussel sprouts that some people hate, the other one is artfully crafted but will only appeal to those who eat salmon. Sushi is delicious and turkey, dressing, and sweet potato pie is delicious, but you can’t expect your sushi roll to feed everyone.

Edit: just wanted to add that i kick started both solasta and pathfinder when it was new...Solasta is an ok game based on the demos and I’ll definitely play it a time or two after I’m done with BG3.

What referencing other games can do is show that certain mechanics can in fact be implemented into games. Of course larian is aware of this and the utility has more to do with defeating some players who might defend not having certain things in a game with the simple excuse that its unrealistic to expect it.

I wouldn't mind if they just up and copied the loyalty and fear system from Tyranny though.

I would think a game developer would be a tad more mature than an affronted ballerina. I'm sure they understand very well that it's beneficial for game devs to look at each other's creations and take lessons from that. Solasta can learn from BG3, too. And there's nothing wrong with helping to point out what it is exactly that works better in The Other Game - especially when there's so much overlap in both games' design goals (fun 5e video game, a living and breathing party...). On the other hand, I hardly expect anyone to point to Solasta and say "hey Larian! make BG3 more of a dungeon crawler". This is clearly not BG3's design goal.

Of course, this - as any feedback - should be provided in a constructive and polite manner, as you say.

To be honest comparing games make it easy. Solasta shows them that making a dnd 5e game is possible and ou don't have to.reskin a divinity. Man I really hope larian adheres to 5ed rules better and gets rid of all the ground effect cheese and tossing 300lbs barrels of oil like there tennis.balls.

Developers often look to other games themselves for inspiration so this is kind of a moot point the OP is making. There's nothing wrong with bringing a suggestion from other, similar games to light if you think it would work well in this one.

I think people are missing a HUGE point about BG3.
Larian is not doing "their" game. They're doing BG3.
They could have done something else like "a Tale from Faerun" or "Illithids vs Gith" or "Tadpole's love"
But no, they decided, they choose to do "BG3".
So they are ot doing just "their" game.
They are doing a game inspired and call himself/align himself with/ use [sb]'s name/ BG3.

So they have obligation/duty.

Of course it's "just" moral obligation. They can shit on everyone faces and do "their" game.

But if they want to meet the expectations coming with their choice of doing "BG3" and not another game in the forgotten realm, they can't say : "well if you like that game so much why don't you go play that and leave us to do our game the way we want it."

They have to listen the feedback and take a really closer look to the other games the players refers to.

There is a difference between bringing the subject of another game in order to pinpoint some flaws which need to be addressed and plainly asserting the other game is the super better greater awesome game BG3 will never be.

Some Solasta posts are hilarious when they state Solasta does well everything BG3 does wrong. I played Solasta. It looks like a student project compared to BG3 in terms of production value. So maybe some folks here should moderate their passion and compare these games more realistically. Sure, Solasta does things really well. But there is a tremendous amount of things BG3 does better.

Well, yes and no. They are doing BG3. And they are supported by and work closely together with WotC/Hasbro, the owners of the IP. And since they themselves stated that it would be based on 5e d&d core rules I also agree that they should follow that rulebook more closely than what they've shown so far. If they simply had stated they were producing BG3, period, a lot less hype about the rules would be there from the start I think. Meaning less disappointment when those expectations were not fulfilled. So that is a situation Larian/WotC created for themselves.

But, on the other hand. BG2 is 20 years old. 20 years. No one really except maybe the developers of that game, has any right to decide what a true spiritual successor should look like today. And as you might have seen in the feedback so far. people disagree a lot because they all have different expectations. As expected. So yes, no matter the IP, it's still Larians game. They are the ones producing it. It's their art. They have no obligations what so ever more than to stay true to what they themselves have stated they will create. Whether we, the consumers, like the end result or not is completely subjective so no matter what Larian will do, some will feel that they just got their faces shit on. Others will happily lick it up and ask for refills.

And as recently becoming a major game developer (they really only have DOS1&2 being huge hits) they have a huge pressure of actually creating THEIR take on the BG IP and still respect the former iterations. Something true original that still honors its roots. They simply can't copy another game. Get inspiration, ofc, and I never said they can't or not already is looking on other products. In fact I stated that's exactly what developers do. But I also stated that companies make damn sure that their products is different from others.

So I never said, never refer to other games. But think about how you do it.

As for the meal dish comparison, macadami. My understanding of the feedback given so far on these forums is that a large share of the players giving feedback wants Larrian to do the sushi roll, not the thanksgiving dinner. I'm simply asking them to ask for the changing order in a more polite way.

And Uncle Lester. I can't claim to personally know that many game developers, but I do know some. And every single one of them is nothing but a biologically growned up man-child. Hardworking, responsible, heavily passionate about their work. Hilarious to hang out with. But still. man-children, even the women. Man-children. And they become really grumpy if you criticize their work without a good reason. Except if you're the boss managing the paychecks. Well. they still get grumpy but at least they won't show it to his face.

Fair, I guess, haha. Perhaps I am an idealist. But still, "well you can play in the other sandbox then!" is something I'd expect from an indie dev, maybe, not a studio of 250 people (350 with contractors) that has any pretense to professionalism.

But, on a more serious note, I think what Larian need is... I won't call it "reality check", but they need to take a step back and look at their project from another/wider perspective. I'm not an EA player, but I've followed the development quite closely (including most interviews) and looked at the feedback/current game state and my impression is that they do want to make it different from Divinity, but are just so used to it (one franchise dev, pretty much) and stuck in their ways that they don't see how it seeps into BG3. Certain tried-and-true solutions are just obvious to them and aren't challenged. They're looking at their game from the inside - and an artist needs to take a look at his canvas from afar from time to time.

One way for them to take this step back is to take a look at player feedback. We have this covered (how they react is up in the air). Another good way, imo, is to see how the game appears in the environment of its genre. Right now, Solasta is perhaps the best comparison. And the more different games in the (sub)genre to compare to, the better idea of the game one can have. So we can compare BG3 to BG1&2, to Divinity and to Dragon Age. And now to Solasta. I think, again, that the more points of reference, the clearer one can see how the (sub)niches work, what makes certain elements work in certain games, and how it all factors in when considering what will be best for the game in question.

So I think that it is VERY constructive and helpful to discuss at length how different features and mechanics vary between games and dissect those differences in detail to try to make sense of it. So something works better in game X than in game Y? What is different between the approaches? Why does it work in game X? Would it really work in game Y, when we consider other differences between them? The more discussion is being had on this, the more likely we'll get to valuable conclusions and productive feedback. Sometimes an off-hand comment with someone's observation may be an eye-opener. "Hey, this guy actually pinpointed the problem without even giving it much thought. It never occured to me."

Of course, again, the keyword is "constructive". "You guys suck!" hardly helps.

(And yes, I'd humbly ask for my sushi roll. )

I'm all for preserving the legacy of any substantial series, but the obligation here feels really heavy-handed.
Both the gaming landscape and D&D have changed a lot over the past 20 years.
This expectation that everything needs to be as important as your nostalgia is making it out to be is silly.
From what I've seen, they have respected the series and are executing those core thematic elements successfully.
I think that at least half of the criticisms and "feedback" present on these forums only exist because of the impossible standards designated by everyone's memory.

Why would you assume that? I, on the other hand, want to see financial records from all the new accounts singing the praises of other games. Ok, I really don't, but I had this flashback to the old days where the conspiracy theory was that Blizzard was paying people to troll other MMO forums...

Does it "work better" or is it more along the lines of "it's what I wanted"? I don't think I need to point out the obvious differences here. As I continue to read critique, I really expect that a lot of players expected a 2.5d top down isometric game if it's going to have Baldur's Gate in the title. Looking at Solasta, I can see that expectation represented fairly well. It's not what I'm looking for. Ironically, the initial "but this game is better" crowd tried to claim that they didn't have a license to use 5e content to make their game, despite the site that they list as being the "source material" for the game expressing a license with WotC on their legal page. They have to have that license, btw, otherwise, they're not going to be around very long when WotC shuts them down for copyright infringement, and rightfully so.

Ehh!

Rephrase that, we're playing BG Jeopardy:
"So, I would first like to say that I love/like (X) and (Y) in BG3 but I really miss that (Z) is not in the game yet. I found that in game (A) they had (Z) but didn't do (X) as good as in BG3. Is it possible to add something similar to (Z) in the game? That would make it, in my opinion, a perfect product/the best of two worlds/vanilla and chocolate in smashing combo etc.

/s

I'll take my que's from Larian if they have have a specific way we need to chat with them. I'm playing both and more even!

Mentioning things that "work better" in other games shouldn't be out of bounds. Especially when it's objectively true.

That won't influence Larian, judging by the last DOS games I played. They have their own ideas about how to do things, for better or worse. Maybe a useful idea will be picked up from feedback to make the game better, but it will still have a strong Larian flavor in the design.

In that spirit, I'll mention that it would sure be nice to have a group inventory and auto-loot function like Wasteland 3 to streamline inventory management. And a more functional hot bar for spells and abilities like in PoE.

Even before it started popping up here on an hourly basis, I had looked at some information on solasta. Nothing I saw screamed "you must buy me". It's hard to lay out the claim of "objectively better" when it's based on a subjective criterial, such as "but I'm a 5e purist, and everything must be 5e", especially when you can bet there will be things that aren't going to satisfy that rules lawyer in the other product too, and they may point that out on that game's forum, but they surely won't mention it here, especially if it conflicts with something else they've already said here. Well, to be fair, there are some people that honestly seem to believe that people only read one thread, so they might try it...

It isn't, whether it's true or, erm, "subjective".

vometia

true is....
TB worked better wih DOS 2 for lot of reasons.
1) the game was design to serve the gameplay.
2) each turn allow the characters to do a lot of things. AA 2, 3, 4 times, or cast 2, 3, 4 spells or just a really big one. Waiting permit to stock action's points, etc.
3) I t gives this feeling-chess. Mastermind (well casual mastermind) feeling. Nice and pleasantly slow.
3) it's a game of his own style and it's really cool. Larian create, innovate, succeed in their way. All new, all cool.




true is...
TB harm a little BG3 for lot of reasons.
1) The game doesn't feel design to serve the gameplay (and I think it's for the better in a certain way. Story should come first in BG.)
2) each turns allow to do one action and one bonus action. Most of the time, it's just waiting for AA. it's really different from the DOS experience, it deliver something which can feel, sometimes, really long, uninteresting and laborious.
3) it doesn't give the feeling of flow and excitement the RTwP gives. It's like taking football and decides it'll be turn-based. It may be fun but not the same fun.
4) Major point, Larian are not creating a whole new game. They are doing a "game +1" and they brag about it. So they have, at least, a moral duty. This is not about being a fan. I would say the same for any "game +1". They have to respect some basics. And, even if BG was smart enought to give the option of TB, it was a RT game.


Some may want to argue about the 1) fact even if it's obvious Larian did DOS cause they loved their TB system and this is why they want to put it in their BG game.
Saying otherwise would be dishonest or proof of a bad understanding of the way Larian did and thougth things.

The 2) fact is the "technical point" of why it didn't work really good.

The 3) and 4) are one of the most missunderstood points. Doing a "game +1" is nothing like doing an "independant game". Larian can do a BG3 in RTS mod with FPS elements and it could be awesome, sells 300 millions copies, etc, etc. It would still be a big treason for the licence and the gamers.

Even Blizzard was not.... stupid enough (sry can't say otherwise) to call "World of Warcraft" "Warcraft 4". And why ? Cause they KNEW it was a really different game and they wont lie to their gamers. I would like to have a "Warcraft 4" as I would have been mad if they called their MMORPG "Warcraft 4"... It's common sens.

And even if Larian is still doing an RPG, the true is a RTwP RPG is not a TB RPG (even if, in fact RTwP is kind of TB).
A good dev... I'm gonna say it differently.
I f I was a dev, even if I was sure in my heart than RTwP is the top of all the gameplay existing, I would, at least, give the two options for my gamers. Because fun for all comes first, not dev's personnal convictions.
But I guess, this last argument is subjective.

"PrivateRaccoon" you do realize they are doing the game based on D&D 5TH edition right. The point of comparing BG3 with other games is precisely because they are both doing the same thing in a different way based on the same rule set.


Solasta is praised for their implementation of D&D combat mechanics.
BG3 changed them a bit cause they felt they needed to do it to create better gameplay. Certain rules need to be changed to serve a video game after Larian's designers.

Solasta proves it's not the case after some people on this forum since they stayed faithful to d&d. That's why Solata is constantly brought up. They had a smaller team and decided not to make changes for the sake of simplicity. And it works so far.

It all boils down to rule implementation strategy. I feel the above answers your post completely. No one wants to go play a different game, we want BG3. A BG3 that works correctly.






Below are just my personal feeling about Larian's approach to rule implementation.

Even before Larian published the EA they ALREADY made the assumption "It can't be that easy, we have to change something". And now they are getting feedback from people who expected those rules to stay as listed in the book.



After me they should have implemented everything as per the original rules since this way the game would be already balanced at least when it comes to numbers and focused on updating the UI, the story, bug fixing. Now they caused more confusion than anything else. Based on feedback they could start to make small changes to original rules if needed. Now they are doing the opposite. They made changes and have to figure out the consequences of those changes.


They will end up with a really good game regardless. They already sold more copies than they wanted. I just hope they will put their " big boy pants" and approach those issues calmly but firmly. With the ridiculous potential this game has it would be nice if it was flawless. And it can be. Sven said " I don't think we can put up with people's expectations, they are set way too high". Considering they already bypassed their own expectations with their sales I'm quite sure they can at least match the expectations of the old farts we BG fans are ^^.

BG3 is literally an adaptation of an existing game product (5e)... continuing an existing game franchise.