Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback This doesn't feel like a Baldur's Gate game (or D&D)

I do agree that the arguments around here can often get more intense than they need to be, but honestly, part of that is, I think, on Larian themselves. We have no way of knowing what decision they've made until we see it implemented in a patch. We can infer, but don't actually know, what decisions they've already made that they won't or can't change at all. So to a degree we don't have a choice but to get bogged down in arguments. The only way we know how to communicate with Larian is to post on these forums and make our cases for the changes we want. So one person makes their case. Another person makes the opposite case. Now the first person feels they have to defend their case because what if Larian takes not doing so as agreement that the other person's case is better. And a whole bunch of people come to back up the various cases being made because they have to prove that they support their idea, so Larian sees that the idea has lots of support. To a degree I can understand Larian's general silence, they don't want to box themselves in. But I still feel like the approach they've taken can't help but exacerbate this sort of arguing. Though I won't go so far as to say they caused it. This is an internet forum about a video game, of course arguments would inevitably occur.

I agree that to know some roadmap would help A LOT.
I was supporting the idea since i get here a year ago ... sadly it seems like Larian still believe that this model suits them better.

On the other hand, blame all our behaviour to their absence of comunication that dont seem fair at all. :-/

It's just sad that you don't explain your "dissenting" opinion to.people that try to understand it.

Whatever may The Composer think, I was really interrested and never tried to devalue your opinion even if we disagree on the thread title and on your affirmations.

My assumptions were based on the only arguments and affirmations we read on this forum when we had those discussions but if your opinion is that a game with (i.e) magic missile, D20 and mindflayer feel like "a BG game", that's fine.

Mine is different especially because some games that does not have those things are more or less unanimously considered as "BG-like" (and some that have them aren't).
But an opinion is an opinion, I'd just like to understand yours.

Larian has internal roadmaps for development, however from a player PoV, Early Access is and always will be only Act 1. A road map for a typical early access game where the full game is released incrementally, a road map makes sense for a release schedule and general idea of where things are going. However, a road map for BG3 would look something like...

Q1: 2022 - Act 1
Q2: 2022 - Act 1
Q3: 2022 - Act 1
Q4: 2022 - Act 1

One could argue or hope for hypothetical details on what content patches include, say...


Q1: 2022 - Act 1: Mountain Pass
Q2: 2022 - Act 1: Monk
Q3: 2022 - Act 1: Iteration pass on 5E adaption
Q4: 2022 - Act 1: Bard

But as far as feedback on forums go, doesn't really make much difference for what kind of feedback or mannerisms we hold here, does it?

Is that hypothetical details though?...Do you know something we don't?! Next class to be released will be Monk! There, The Composer said it, and I will hold it as truth! (No, I'm not being serious )

Haha. I wish. Monk when?!

Anyway yes, just an arbitrary example for a point. Sadly.

Lol!

As there are no "in stone" road maps I am aware of it suggests the schedule/process is somewhat fluid which makes me quietly optimistic. Trial and error is better than a tick sheet to do list imo. Still I would prefer a bit of player feedback from Larian instead of dead silence until they drop something.

I get the feeling the EA testbed is something in the background at the studio rather than something they are actively developing. As such I think when the game drops for reals we may be surprised....Or maybe that is the eternal optimist speaking again.

Amazing. That “rant” directly addressed your point of why these people might all be taken. The simple answer is that we don’t know because we’ve only seen the start of the story. Except for one case which we do know is linked somehow.

You don’t like it, that’s a shame, but it is very subjective.

Yes. sadly.

And I guess with a road map I believe I would be asking for the impossible because what I would like is to see which parts that is set in stone. That way, no matter if I like the current situation or not, I know I can focus my feedback on something else. But either is something never set in stone with Larian, and even if it is, they will never let us know will they

But for example, in the Camp clothing thread you stated that random encounters is against Larians design philosophy. There, I didn't know that. Now I know that we most(not saying 100%) certainly won't get random generated combat meaning there's no use asking for it.

I was actualy thinking about marking at least megathreats if not everything as "concidering" "declined" and "working on implementation"

I do believe they have internal roadmaps, it would be crazy to create something like this game without them.
But we cannot see that, wich is understandable. :-/

Still wouldn't make a difference as far as forum behaviors and mannerisms go.

If 'concidering', posts would be as now, with people arguing their preference of implementation, and arguing why it should/shouldn't to sway where the consideration lands, just like now.

If 'declined', there'd be outcry with people arguing their preference and arguing why it should/shouldn't to sway why it should be considered, just like now.

If 'working on implementation', posts would... You see where I'm probably going with this: Not change from status quo. Only the format of the argument would change: "I hope they don't Larian-fy this / Why are they implementing this instead of X that I think is much more important for it to be BG3 and not DOS3', and around and around the wheel spins.


Edit: Doesn't mean I disagree by the way. I'd love some insight on what goes on and what is definitely in the works etc. Just suggesting that I don't think a road map matters here as much as sometimes is implied. Personally I think it'd be better in form of community updates and/or in the Panel From Hell streams, so I more often push for a change of where the focus is at during those streams, than something I don't believe really matters in any sense other than "cool to have".

I beg to differ ...
Sure there would be people who would act just as you described ... but there would also people who would appreciate it and accept it ... i count myself for one.

Let me be clear here. Just beacuse I don't think the game feels like DnD it doesn't mean that I don't like it. In fact I like BG3 very much. I like it in spite of it not feeling like DnD, and I like it in spite of the awful party control mechanics.
So when people say "Oh well there are thousands of players out there who is having a blast with the game so they must all think that BG3 feels just like DnD" I think that statement is a bit disingenuous. They may very well, just like me, be having a blast with the game in spite of it not feeling like a DnD game.

The easiest solution is to speak for one self, and one self only. As soon as people start speaking on behalf of others, regardless of which side of any isle, that post loses most if not all of its credibility to me. Of course there are exceptions, but in general I think it's in peoples best interest to stop using "so many hypothetical others in my perspective that I think is many means that my argument is more valid". Because like Peranor says, it's not black and white.

No it was an attempt at a insult "your brain cannot figure out" followed by a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said creating a strawman. Then preceeded to argue against said strawman. How does describing 5 backstories as "fantastical" therefore not believable in the setting translated into "my brain dumb"? You are arguing semantics on the back of the same strawman argument. Arguing on the back of something I never actually said.

I agree the story isn't complete and as such maybe fragmented in a way that makes it unbelievable. If for example there is a prologue explaining why these 6 very specific esoteric people were "chosen" etc. and this is why they were on the ship, then sure it would make more sense. However their individual predicaments like Gale the godlaying magic bomb etc. etc. Is still a difficult swallow. It is the problem created when you feel the need to create 5-6 origin stories and hamstring them into an already complex plot. You as the player are not eased into the plot, you basically have it rammed down your thoat all at once.

Example, you are on the nautiloid and kill your way to the helm, kill all the stuff and hit the warp button. Why did the nautiloid warp to a palce you just so happened to need to be? Was it random? Did the mindflayer give the co-ords? Was it on purpose? If so why not take you to moonrise towers or something? DON'T KNOW!! If it is random then that is a mighty coincidence that you dropped out where a bunch of others with magic tadpoles were. Just outside a grove where a druid just found someone with your exact condition and has a history that suits the main plot....The nautiloid can travel between realities, even the hells yet you were plopped out right where you needed to be. Seriously? So it is only my opinion that this is bad writing? This is 5 minutes into the game.

At no point did I say or even suggest nobody else should like it.

Maybe let them release bg3 first. It's too good to delay ..

But when it comes to expansions, why not let them create a different approach and test the waters how a more grounded story would appeal to the masses. Could be a parallel side story which happens during the main events, but smaller scope more grounded.

I think the thread raises valid points and Larian may or may not discuss it:

(1) The graphics and general presentation of the game are, right now, very good. I don't think anyone would disagree with that
(2) It's of course a far cry from pathfinder kingmaker or pathfinder wrath of the righteous, which many people argue is closer to BG1/2, in mechanics, world and storytelling
(3) Some people are rightfully pointing out that they want their Elves, Drow, Tieflings to be rare, enigmatic and special. By going overboard and presenting Tieflings, Drow, Elves, Githyanki, Illithids, Dragons, high end magic etc. as 'everyday' occurence, they essentially become boring.
(4) Having a few "special" companions that are vampires, have a demonic pact, slept with the god of magic etc. is fine, but again, they can only shine if they are put in contrast with "normal" companions.
(5) The game is centered on the player, but the player seems to be the least cool/important. In BG1/BG2 the player was the spawn of Bhaal, which resulted in a whole lot of comments by companions, romances etc. Right now it seems the player is the most normal of the bunch.
(6) There is apparently a big change from D&D 3.5 lore to 5 lore, which confuses people who played BG1/2. Their beloved evil, supremacist Drow are suddenly the same as Humans with silver hair, long lived, spiritual Elves are just the same as Humans, only prettier, infernal Tieflings are the same as Humans with horns and glowing eyes.
(7) Fantasy and science fiction is popular because people actually love to discuss philosophical questions in these stories. How would a long lived species like Elves behave? How would evil Drow organize their society? I'm not asking for Baldur's Gate 3 to be a PhD thesis but a bit of Jules Verne would be cool.

For me the "BG feeling" is also being able to build a party that shares alignment, works well together and generally gets along. BG1&2 have a large selection of companions so you can always build a group you like.

Because of the origin focus, BG3 might only have 8 companions. How many are you even going to like out of them?

We have the evil companions in EA with the good ones mostly missing. So, what if you like to play a good-aligned party like most players do? What can we even expect? Are we going to be stuck bringing Minsc and the halfling or gnome bard every time? And the annoying cocky Wizard with his ludicrous stories? I never liked Minsc because he seems more like a liability with his mental handicap, and I don't like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Halflings or Gnomes as PC's. I'm a fan of a more classic human/elf/dwarf party composition. It's simply easier to relate to those races. I have nothing against Halflings or Gnomes but that's like bringing children to battle. I liked Gale at first but the Mystra story kind of ruined his credibility and then the overconfidence also became annoying.

My most used BG1 party has been Jaheira, Ajantis, Branwen, Dynaheir and Coran. (Who all seem like real adventurers somehow compared to the epic menagerie in BG3. I miss ordinary believable heroes. The BG3 cast just makes my eyes roll. Even the amazing voice acting doesn't help when everyone's story is so ridiculous.)

So.. if you want to play a neutral / good aligned party of humans, elves and dwarves, or a more down to earth party in general, BG3 simply won't deliver???

I don't personally have an issue with the situation of the companions, but I do agree that they're all rather...much. however I don't really agree about the situation of the coincidence at the start of the game. I view that as just the coincidence needed for the story to happen. Sometimes in a story, things just happen because the writer needs them to. When this is leaned on too much, it ruins stakes and becomes a bad story, but honestly, I think this is a fine way to start this sort of story. It happens this way because it's interesting and moves the plot forward. I think the fact that it's the beginning of the story actually makes it more forgivable, because it's the rush of beginning, when everything is being laid out. It's setting the stage, putting the pieces in order. I don't think that this is the sort of thing that requires a clear rationale.

*Frowny face*

Niara Disapproves.