Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General So what now?

Question ... isnt a little late for that now?

I mean its great idea ...
Would make A LOT more sense to have it somewhere nearby than Shadowheart being locked in pod with such important item ... and if player would ignore the item, they could simply find out on the beach that artefact is in their pocket ... it seems to have its own will, since it litteraly dont let you throw it away, so ... why not? And personaly i love it!

I just wonder how many conversations they would need to rewrite, or straight up delete. O_o
Seems like a lot. :-/

It sounds like they are still in process of rewriting and re-recording it. I think better implementation of getting the box wouldn’t be a big issue but a bigger challenge would be “what to do with Shadowheart.” The box is part of the story so she either would be removed or her content/purpose greatly altered - coming up with ways for the player to have the box in spite of their actions is probably a more cost effective alternative.

Actualy i think that would not require much alternation ...
I remember in some past patch, she said to me when i had the box something like "seems like it wants to stay with you ... okey, as long as you keep it, i will stay aswell" ...
Something like that could work ...

You take it > you have undroppable box ...
You dont take it > it takes itself.

Shadow wants it ...
So you can give it to her, and she stick around ... so you still keep it close.
Or you can not give it to her, and she will either stick around to watch you (it), or she try to persuate you if you have positive relationship ... or attack you if you dont.
And if she die, or you send her away somehow ... the item re-appears in your inventory next morning, just as it would if you ignored it at the begining ... and next evening Shadow can re-appear in your camp, wanting her box back and you dead so it stays with her this time.

(Just as The One Ring ran away from Golum. )
Also ... i admit i really miss that old psychotic dialogue you get when she ambushed you in middle of the night, bcs "voices keep bothering her, and something drags her towards you" ... it was much greater than what we have now.

I don't know... people keep saying they should have just made it obvious... How much more obvious could it have been? The emphasis on the whole Shar/Selune dichotomy, the fact she is a follower of Shar... And she has this weird artifact that is clearly massively important to her.

It's kind of like that whole average character thing... They gave us all these choices and we still manage to be as vanilla as possible. They put something important in the game. That thing is really, really difficult to ignore. And they made it even more obvious as time went on... At some point, it's incumbent on us to pick up on it. I feel like we're complaining about them giving us entirely too much credit.

I feel similarly about this to how I feel about the Grove/Goblin routes, there's a clear way that a reasonable character would choose, people who don't have Shadowheart on board are probably making a point of working against the game. I would guess that these are all problems for after your first playthrough.

That still doesn't excuse writing yourself into a corner like this though, especially when you're making a game that is up-front about choice and consequence.

You all do realize that the box was an example to illustrate the point in that video? How on earth can you debate about the box for several pages is beyond my comprehension.

Yeah? That's EXACTLY why it's being discussed.
BEcause it's not strictly about "the box". It's about driving yourself into a corner in an attempt to chase convoluted design decisions.

......Side effect of an unexpectedly long EA period?

Who can resist the lure of the mystery box?

It was a cute little video intended to show off Larian in a human light. One of the things they're most praised about online for BG3 is the way they've given the player so many avenues and choices. Plenty of players like that they can skip Shadowheart and see her show up later at the druid's grove.

This video showcases that work. It does so in a somewhat humble and humorous way, illustrating the size of the workload they've tackled while admitting that they still have to rely on the occasional clumsy and heavy handed scene if the player actively ignores every other obvious path.

What I suspect they weren't doing was asking for advice from every armchair game designer on the planet.

And if you manage to keep ignoring SH up to the goblin camp, she "follows" you anyway so that the box can provide protection when needed. I've not tried ignoring her again after that important cutscene. I wonder what happens if you do that?


Yes, Larian seem to prefer "push" communications rather than interactive. I guess here Swen is trying to highlight the sorts of dev issues that take time, perhaps to try to cool the criticism about the lengthy EA period. Personally, I prefer to wait for the game to be ready, rather than play yet another unfinished game release.

But. That. Is. Not. A. Choice.

My initial response was precisely response to what you have written. Does Larian think this is some kind of amazing reactivity? My issue isn't with it that Sven made a bad call (those happen) but that they seem to use it as advertising? Again, maybe Sven is indeed honest to a fault, and I can respect it, and he is just sharing an anecdote of unintentional consequnces of a decision they made just because he finds it interesting.

My only two main point against "the box" are as follows:

1) it is "anti-reactivity" - the game retcons player's decision to ignore/not recruit. It doesn't REACT to players actions, it attempts to rectify them.
2) It's expensive and inelegant. "We give player freedom but need them to do something specific" isn't a new problem. It's as old as gaming. Box example isn't giving player freedom, it's Larian poorly scripting mandatory story bit. And yeah the problem originates from giving a story critical item to a companion, who is by design skippable. Creating branchig paths depending on player having access to the item or not - that would be reactivity.

I suppose my reaction is that negative, because that was precisely one of the issues I had with D:OS2. "You can do anything but nothing narratively matters".

Edit.
I am not terribly offended by the content of the video BTW, in case I am coming off too negative. "We have made a poor decision, and am sinking resources into subpar solutions to the potential problems" - I just find it an odd content to see prior to release, as I mentioned in my initial post, that is something I would expect to hear in Post Mortem. In defence of the design, the most extreme situation will be hard to get without someone intentionally trying to avoid Shadowheart - as such, a clumsy cutsene might be a reward in itself.

That said, I must say that I found artifact teleporting to PC to be unsatisfying narratively. So NOW Shadowheart is fine with us having the artifact "because it chose you". Why was she so protective of it, when the artifact has a seeming power to pick whomever it wants?

And people weren't giving advice either (as if it would even matter at this point in development), just commenting on it.

Which is their legitimate prerogative, no matter how bitterly you may be seething about it.

Just goes to show, fully voiced cutscenes are CRPG poison. It basically defeats any engine flexibility you’ve established. Having seen Josh Sawyer’s excellent presentation on the costs of voice acting - let alone MOTION CAPTURE - I actually can’t believe they haven’t bankrupted themselves.

I can concur that to err is human and we can all forgive mistakes to an extent. In this instance, and I admit I am being unfavourably harsh here, is that it was a totally legitimate idea which was implemented poorly. It seems bizarre to release a video admitting this, something along the lines of an attempt to garner sympathy.

As to your last point, I sort of feel that is the point of EA no? And also in a roundabout way, this video of supposed humility on their part actually gives them the perfect excuse when it comes to not implementing some much requested features because of the hiccup in the road that this box narrative is apparently presenting and the resources required to rectify it.

I didn't think it was possible, because of they've already made the "zany" design choice to give the player the heavily fleshed out choice between removing and romancing the tadpole, but this whole "box debacle" makes it seem they're even more completely obsessed with acknowledging idiotic and "funny" choices, as legitimate ways to successfully play the game. Shielding the player from self-inflicted failure on every turn.

Still somewhat suprised, that Larian's management is so hideously inefficient. Starting production without a mostly solid script, you know you can implement, especially when the game relies heavily on full VO, mocap dialogue/animations seems unbelievably amateurish. They could have just nipped the permutation mess in the bud, if they'd just stickied the protective cube into the players inventory when we awake on the beach. Maybe even make it obvious in a cutscene where the cube changes possession, that it is the one protecting us from the deadly fall.

But I guess they just couldn't resist giving the player the wacky freedom of choice(with guaranteed success) to ignore/toss potentially important character and a likely essential plot item.

I can aswer that ...

Depends ...
This all can be rewritten ... yes, it would mean loosing lots of resources in the process, but such is cost of bad decision ... you just have to either keep investing and hope that someday it somehow transform into something good ... or scrap it whole and start again ...
the sooner they realize it the better.

That said she dont have to be "fine with it" ...
Since the whole "you have what she wants" would have to be written from scratch, any attitude would be possible.
Aswell as her overprotectivity for the item ... that can either be adjusted or deleted completely.

Also dont forget that we are talking here about scenario where she either didnt manage to retrieve the box (in case it was on Nautiloid) ... or it was taken from her when Illithids captured her and put her in that pod.

Well said! All of this is exactly my take as well.

+1
honestly while story and branching choices are important i rather they focus in improving or enhancing other aspect of the game. reactions, multiclass, itemizations, subclasses/archetypes, character customization and perhaps random encounters!

currently replaying solasta COTM the 2nd time using mods. really having alot of fun multiclassing. absolutely loving my barbarian/hoodlum multiclass. also dipping 3 levels of barbarian to my paladin make her more tankier and the instant advantage is really nice. are there similar rogue archetypes like the hoodlum in DMG or PHB? loving that sneak attack with non finesse weapon.