Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Larian doesn't care about our gameplay ideas

Why don't they just tell us "We're reading our forum, don't worry"

Now that's a good question. Man's hearts hold Shadows darker than any tainted creature

You mean like when they said: "...we are hugely appreciative of those who have so far provided feedback. Please continue to do so."

I guess confirmation bias is a thing

it can be reviews on twitter or reddit, or through a special feedback form. But they did not say anything about the Larian Studio forum

Larian never promised to implement gameplay ideas of random people from the forum and they should never do that. They wanted feedback, which helps them know what features people like and what dislike but Larian will be working according to their own vision, not a vision of some angry forum poster. Obviously some feedback on feedback would have been great but I understand why they want to keep silence. People just get angry if they are bluntly told that their ideas are horrible and won't be implemented.

I recommend watching Panel From Hell, Swen and Adam talk a lot about EA philosophy and how feedback IS important to Larian. (I think most feedback-related stuff is from 1:07:30.)

Of course you could say they're just lying, but... well, for now we have no good grounds for claiming that. The Composer (mod) is occasionaly chiming in and saying that yes, they're actively gathering feedback. They need some time to process it, as I understand they've severely underestimated player numbers (and amount of feedback to come). The communication could be better, but rushing with patches would not be good.

One thing I'm worried about is how far they're willing to go with changes to the game. Swen gave the example of D:OS2 changing during EA, but from what I see it wasn't that much. BG3 needs much greater changes and a lot of work.

What?

Party size is not going to change. If by camping mechanics, you mean limiting when you can camp, then that isn't a lot of work.

Larian Studios answering to posts on these forums and other media (reddit and so on) would take far more time than just gather feedback silently. Also making us promises about implementing something and arguing about why they choose to do things one way or the other would be counterproductive, also a waste of time and resources. What they still could do is add a stickied post on top of forum, that nobody would read, repeating same things they already said in patch notes and other posts: that they are reading our feedback.

Don't try to change the game through some kind of mob pressure, that isn't feedback. If I work on a sculpture or painting, and somebody tells me they like this part and less so another, I may do some changes or not. Our posts can be a valuable resource, but also a waste of time reading them.

Just give suggestions and feedback without expecting anything.

In fact, it is likely they are scanning our feedback with a sophisticated social media algorithm, so really all you need to do is type the key words rather than full sentences:

dice roll, hit probability, party formation, origin, 5E rules, evil path, level cap, full release date

That's about it.

Well, the only thing that can be said is that there is no confirmation that they are accepting the feeback. There is no indication of the contrary, however, they might be implementing things players want, and it just takes some time.

My biggest fear is that Larian created BG3 with a DOS-hybrid mindset, that is, they always wanted it to deviate from 5ed and to be more like DOS, and this is not going to change. If this is the case, I imagine some harsh criticism when the game comes out.

Have you played DOS 1 EA? Cause if you have, you must know they are capable of radically change some mechanics in their games.

Didn't know there was an EA. If that is the case, how are some of the game mechanics so bad?
Talking specifically about loot and merchant inventories. Randomized loot in a game where enemies don't respawn, also enemies almost never drop loot, not even the weapons and armor that they are using.
Randomized merchant inventories that update ONCE PER LEVEL. That is, if you level up and there is nothing good there, you're fucked.

No one complained about that during EA?

Actually someone posted things that was requested in dos1 from a backer and he reposted it some where else to save it, since he you know didn't get his way. You can dig through the forums, maybe you'll see your answers their.

Truthfully with my multi-plays I had with that game I cant say I ever noticed either of those problems or cared really. Why is this such a big deal...nevermind it really isn't. Youtube dos1 ea if you want to see the game before it went live.

morning

I get angry when they specifically ask us to give feedback on the evil path and then it turns out it's barely implemented and on top of that we get a mailed update saying "74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems. " See the multiple evil path threads why.

Haven't actually played EA, but I was really surprised people are disappointed about the evil path. Especially after Larian hyped it so much... or rather, hyped up that there are multiple viable, reactive evil paths. That the game allows you to play different shades of evil characters and it's all on-par with good playthroughs. To the point people were worried good playthroughs will be the ginger stepchild.

+1 to @Moirnelithe

@Uncle Lester. There is a single evil path currently, and it is Chaotic Evil (or Stupid Evil or psychopath evil).
The only motivations to take this evil path are:
--want to murder innocent tieflings, druids, children
--want to have sex with Minthara (which you can't know will happen unless you've been spoiled, as there's little in-game forewarning of this possibility)
--active desire to take the path with the least chances of helping you with your tadpole problem

The good path has overwhelmingly better story and incentives, and I'm confident the only reason the evil path was chosen as often (25%) was because Larian specifically told us to test it.

I agree with you, of course. However, in the recent interview Swen said that their writers tend to be good aligned and always forget to include proper evil options. I understood it as follows. The writers told Swen that they made a wide variety of evil options and they are proud of it. Swen went on on the dev stream to encourage players to try the evil path his writers so proud of because he knows what their tendencies are. Consequently, if they read the feedback Larian should note that and fix it. It doesn't mean, however, that they need to follow suggestions by some random guy from the forum who is angry because his own "very important" suggestion wasn't implemented in the game. Regarding the "good outweighs evil" line I just hope that this is the personal take of the writer of that post and not an official Larian position. Time will tell.

Eh, quite disappointing indeed. I guess those are two "fine" reasons: for the evulz (psychopath evil) or because the Absolute clearly must know more about how to harness tadpole powers (power-seeking evil)? (Idk, guessing here, please don't spoil.)

But yeah, besides that... most evil characters are going to go with the "good path". And that's another thing I thought Larian is going to avoid: "good path, evil path". Simplified railroaded duality (or at least it seems so to me). Judging by what they've told us before EA, I was sure it's going to be "multiple ways to solve problems", with morality being secondary to "what someone could realistically decide to do". (Which would organically result in multiple moralities reflected in different possible choices.)