Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Option this, option that

Making a huge list of options in the menu would be a “nice to have” but not strictly necessary.

What i would find necessary is enough modding capability built in where people could make options they like/others might like such as following 5e more closely.

All the legacy stuff you leave in makes the game more complex. It's extra cognitive load whenever dealing with the thing that has different versions. It's one extra permutation for testing. It makes the UI more messy for players, they need to make an extra choice etc. There is a huge list of reasons why you want to remove all legacy and all options.

Having options is nice, but claiming that it doesn't have a cost is being dishonest. Every single option is effort away from something else. So, for each option Larian will have to ask themselves, is it worth it or not. They aren't removing them because they are evil and want to take away your toys.

How?

And i mean it, please anyone tell me at least one example.
(I bet you dont find any.)

No-one commenting on these boards has suggested they have had sight of the BG3 source code, so everyone's opinion here is just speculation.

The actual cost to Larian for supporting multiple options depends ( at least ) upon how they have structured their code, the degree to which the code is data driven, how they manage their assets, and how their QA process works.

Most ( but not all ) changes discussed in these threads do not seem to me ( speculating as a software engineer that knows something about game and simulation design ) to be likely to impose significant cost, but few changes discussed will be without any cost.

In other words we don't have enough information to "prove" this either way. But don't let me stop you speculating

Obviously ...
But even speculations should be based on something ... i mean, if you think something, you had to have some reason no?

If you want to claim that something would require additional testing, coding, UI changes, creatin additional choice ... you should have no problem to explain why do you believe that.

You dont "just think it" ... thats madness. O_o

And yet... That's what people do, isn't it? People often just sprout things off without thinking or without any real sound logic.

Relying on modding to provide options is generally NOT a good solution. At a minimum, modding must come with Larian providing a built-in mod manager system for the game, so that all it takes is activating a mod in Steam Workshop to add that mod to the game. Having to download mods from somewhere else and then rely on a third-party mod manager to add the mod to the game, then keep repeating this every time either Larian updates the game or the mods gets updated would be criminally offensive.

I think you just broke hyperbole.

Why does it keep getting repeated that additional options would worsen/clutter up the UI??? Please someone explain how that works.

These options will, hopefully, be added to an "Options" page in the game's settings, a page dedicated to changing these options. Not the inventory menu. Not the hotbar. Not the character sheet page. Players will see these options (hopefully either in a drop-down menu, or requiring scrolling down) when they first choose the difficulty when starting the game, and then can (again, OPTIONALLY) return to that dedicated-options-page to make later changes if & whenever they wish.

If a player doesn't wish to mess around with the options, they'll theoretically either never or only once see all of these settings. If a player does want to change the options, they have the ability to at anytime. Win-win.

#####
In other news, I don't think Larian should have to provide a built-in mod manager. That said, they obviously shouldn't be creating the game with the attitude "eh, modders will fix it." It's fairly standard at this point for games to come with a variety of options (at the very least: different difficulty and accessibility settings). And business-wise, adding options almost strictly expands Larian's consumer base. We should obviously keep arguing for options, and then theoretically Larian would decide which ones are worth it based on difficulty and popularity.

Equally, if you have no visibility into how something is created, you cannot be sure that ANY change would have no impact, however "simple" you consider the change to be.

There are good general principles usually followed when designing software ( avoid hard-coded constants, use modular design with unit testing, always perform integration and regression testing for any change, and many more ). But for any given development, there may be reasons to consciously decide to ignore those principles.

Videogames are particularly prone to making unusual development decisions, partly because they are real-time software, which can add performance constraints to software design decisions, and partly because games are ephemeral and do not have a long support tail; there is little need to plan for future adaptability.

If I were to pick a single reason why any arbitrary change to game has an associated cost, it would be that every change SHOULD be adequately tested before being released. Judging by the bugginess of many games, this often does not happen

Such bizarre comments in this thread. "Any additional options would take time away from making the game, so they shouldn't be added". The hell are we having an Early Access for then? Why are we talking about anything at all regarding this game then?

Indeed. I am fighting this very thing right now with FO 4, and some mod that is conflicting with one of the paid DLCs. Every time I get close to the zone where the DLC starts, the game crashes to the desktop. I'd prefer to have my options officially supported, so that I'm not having to spend a day deactivating and activating mods to figure out what's breaking my game.

100% agree. I HATE mods.

^Exactly!! How anyone can consider this to be an acceptable thing is completely beyond me.

This is true ...
But the question was not about being sure that change will have no impact ... the question was:
"Based on what exactly do you presume the change would result in theese problems you listed."

And that certainly should have some reason ...
Otherwise its just throwing random complains without any reason, hoping that some will stick. :-/

I mean, this can work sometimes ... but not here.

You are the one who first made baseless claims that things would have no cost because they are already there, just leave them and implement a new one on the side

As a software developer, I can come up with a long list of things that cause extra effort, even if you just leave some stuff in rather than replace it with a new implementation. Here is a random non-comprehensive list that might cause extra work, but I'm not an insider, so I don't speficially know and it also varies case by case:
* You must now test both implementation when something changes
* You must support an UI that allows selecting which implementation you wish to use plus localization for that
* You must support the mechanics of switching between implementations
* Since there are two implementations and everything that interacts with this thing, will have to work with both implementations
* Users will have to make a choice which implementations they use (this is not always a positive thing)
* System/code complexity is higher, leading to higher cognitive load for designers/developers and increasing chance of bugs
* All future changes will need to be made for both implementations

I'm not saying there shouldn't be options or that we shouldn't suggest ones, but you must understand that each option will have a cost. None of them are free like some seem to think and blame Larian for being lazy/evil/mean/incompetent when they don't implement them

I know, i was there ...
And i still believe it.

Thats why we have EA ... people do that.

You allready have UI that supports first implementation ... all you need to do is not rework it i order to support new idea.
Localisation is exactly the same.

This really dont seem like an argument, this is common logic ...
If you have stables for horses ... and decide to also raise elephants ... and you therefore demolish your stables, in order to create biger one for those elephants ... you cant cry afterwards about not having any place for your horses. O_o

Actualy spellcasting is perfect example:

*NOW*
When you click on "level 1" filter, all "level 1" spells show up ... but once you click some, you get to "choose spell level" screen of that spell, instead of casting.
Why? Bcs Larian deleted previous implementation!

*Back then*
We were able to put any spell level on our hotbar ... you pick, you click, you cast ... easy.
It had its own problems ofc, bcs there was not enough space on hotbar and spells took too much, since you had to have every spell level separately.
So Larian invented popup windows ... since then, lowest spell levels were not spells anymore, but icons that opened popup window, where you pick level for casting.

What we (read as i) asked back them was to keep curent system ... instead of deleting spells lvl 1 from our spellbook and replace them with popup-window-spells-icons ... implement instead some new row of memorized spells where you can get theese icons, but keep spells as they were so you can also pick any Spell lvl 1 and drag it to your hotbar.
This way everyone would be happy.
And just for the record, there was also several pictures for UI design, that would support both options.

*NOW*
Larian would save lot of time and effort, since in last build people are coplaining that when they pick level 1 spells filter ... and then they pick spell and click on it ... they want to cast and not pick level again.
If previously asked option would be presented, Larian would not need re-invent icons for level 1 spells.

So ... funny enough, this example should show quite clearly that every decision may potentialy have its cost ... even if you decide *not* include option, it might come and bite you in the ass in the future.

Logicaly ...
But that dont answer me the question how can some mechanic that supported option A can stop supporting it, once option B is implemented. O_o

I mean, if you are implementing options, you should keep them both in mind while implementing mechanics that will work with them ... this should go without saying. :-/

This is exactly the same point as abowe. O_o

No, they dont ... there is allways a default setting.
I would expect you as a software developer, to know this. O_o

You dislike what you have > you check options and potentialy switch it ... you do > you leave it ... easy.

The important word here is "chance" ...
Also, as far as i know, system/code complexity is something that only affects curently used system ... if you have two options, that one that is turned off does nothing in your system. O_o

Sure, the bigger the code is the bigger is chance that someone made something wrong ... but thats why we have hotfixes. O_o
This certainly isnt problem that affects specificaly only options.

Obviously, but that was allready told twice abowe.

Each new option you mean ... yes, that is true.
But how can something you allready have done, implemented, tested, prepared, and perfectly working ... cost you any extra, that is beyond my understanding. :-/
It does when you mess with it, that is true ... if you have done, implemented, tested, prepared and working mechanic ... and then you change single thing about it, it can set whole cascade of effects ... but as long as you leave it be, its done, implemented, tested, prepared and working ... and therefore it dont cost anything anymore.

---

I would like to see some specific examples to be honest, since that is the best way for me to imagine it ...
I mean just take some options people want really often around here ... i take inspiration from Mega-threats:

1) 6 member party.
I gues nobody can be surprised that this one goes first.

Now lets take your points fast:
Testing > EA is there for that ... solved.
UI > The game is allready supporting it, tested through Mod ... solved.
Switching > The game works for both options the same (at least to me) ... solved.
Working with both > Same as abowe ... solved.
User choice > 4 member is default, 6 member is option ... solved.
Chance of bugs > In whole EA 1 was found, can be solved quite easily ... maybe in next patch, maybe never, dunno.
Future changes > Since the UI is allredy prepared for this option ... and no ballance is required by most people supporting it around here ... solved.

I see no problem with this option whatsoever. O_o

2) Spellcasting.
As mentioned abowe, i know it dont have megathreat, but i want it anyway. :P

Testing > EA is there for that (yes i will repeat exactly this every time)
UI > It is demanded since the UI changed in last patch, so they would need to do it anyway.
Switching > There is no switching in this case, both options can coexistent at once.
Working with both > Same as abowe (yes i will most likely repeat this one aswell)
User choice > Same as abowe.
Chance of bugs > Basicaly we can claim that curent state is bugged ... this would be solution.
Future changes > They better count with both ... low level spells are quite important.

I see no problem with this option whatsoever. O_o

3) Reactions (Yes, i purposefully left some topics out.)
Larian want them to be automatic ... we want full control ...
Suggested option:
Set reactions for Automatic / Ask / Off ...
Automatic > leave thigs as they are now.
Ask > popup window that shows to player every reaction he can do, every time he can use some ... as long as they are set for Ask. (Aka. exactly as in Solasta.)
Off > reaction will be ignored at all time.

Testing > EA
UI > People are complaining for reactions UI in curent state ... it would require some work, suggested UI change would require only to create one more visual effect on their icons.
Switching > Not sure what to say here ... obviously we would need mechanic that would allow us to switch mods for each reaction.
Working with both > That is the idea.
User choice > Same as abowe.
Chance of bugs > Unknown.
Future changes > Should certainly keep this both in mind, yes.

I can see some slight difficiulties with this one ... but since Swen himself repeately confrimmed that they are curently working on better reaction system, it will most likely get reworked anyway.

Now ... please, tell me where i am wrong.

---

OP as it seems refuse to give me at least those 10 options ...
So i dare to presume s/he was unable to find so many of them ... and therefore main point of this topic (aka: there will be too much) will be concidered void by myself. :-/

I can only assume that you have an extensive experience of software designing. If so, please, advice as to where I can obtain a copy of a product that you yourself have designed/developed or have been a part of a developing team or in any other way contributed to creating. If you haven't got any experience in software developing/coding/designing or otherwise attributing to a making of a such, then, please, abstain from making claims into what it takes to make it.

It seems that there is no shortage of suggestions and no matter how something gets implemented there will always be people who complain, It is inevitable. I'm positive that some of the options will be added or reworked, especially when Swen have said that much himself (according to you, I do not keep up with their announcements).

I also think that the whole EA thing was more of a PR move than a need for actual testing, I'm sure they have testers they work with.

P.S. I must say that from browsing on this forum most of the time I do agree with you, but not this time. You just cannot tell for sure that there is no cost for implementing something when you have NO insight into the actual development process.

Nonsense, this is a discussion forum, stop pretending you're the arbiter of who can make what claims. Rag can claim whatever the hell he wants that doesn't break the forum rules.

I want the following options:

1. Day/Night
2. Random Encounters done right
3. 5e Rule Set
4. Mini-camp actually accessible via the map
5. Short Rest managed by Hit Dice
6. Shove = 5 ft/2 meters
7. Dialogue triggered by short and long rest
8. Party of 6 max
9. Ability to turn off sex scenes and censor language
10. Ability to turn off blood
11. Ability to replace Astarion with a Teletubby
12. Option to have headshots cause confetti to burst out and for children to scream, "Yay!" Like in Halo.
13. Option to ride on the red dragon in the scene with the kith'rak
14. Option to yeet a cat 300 feet into a spider lair and then have him and the entire party gain a short rest while the spiders are hunting for him.
15. Option to kill tiefling children - not just goblins
16. Option to pvp another player while they're in a dialogue with an NPC.
17. Option to shoot an NPC while another player is in dialogue so the NPC attacks the other player.
18. Option to gain frost giant strength in a moment so I can throw enemies at other enemies and do more damage than a weapon can to both.
19. Option for food to spoil so I have more useless junk in my inventory.
20. Option to not have my MC have a voice.
21. Options for better body types.
22. Options for better faces that look more like elf faces.
23. Options to take a dump
24. Options to not take the mysterious Box.
25. Options to not die when walking on lava in Grymforge
26. Options to not use dice at all in a D&D game.
27. Options to not uses classes
28. Options for RTWP.
29. Options to have MORE dialogue choices
30. Options for better Fast Travel.

YEEEEES! More options!