|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2021
|
+1 to what Tuco just posted. +1 to the above also. Well detailed post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2022
|
Off-topic replies are in spoilers, but I don't wish to derail the thread so please stick to the OP's topic instead. Putting this in spoilers because I do not wish this thread derailed from a request to get some clarification on certain discussions and features to dissection of my comment. This is all well and good for you. But what about those of us, like me, who are passionate fans of the original BG games and who have been waiting twenty years for that third game in the series, who are very excited at the prospect of finally having that third BG game, BUT who did NOT consider the D:OS games to be good games at all? It's not like we can just wait a few more years and expect someone else to give us that new BG game. This is it. There is no other possibility of a new BG game. So, as someone who did NOT see D:OS2 as a good game, but who as a huge fan of the original BG games very much wants to get a really good BG3 game, what exactly should I be doing here? The question is very broad as you didn't mention your true thoughts on the game itself, so all I can say is Baldur's Gate 3 is not the true spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate I & II and it never will be, especially 20 years later with a different developer. It plays nor feels nothing like the previous games and anyone looking for even remotely the same experience won't get it here. Only the old games can provide the experience the fans of those games are looking for. Personally I look at Baldur's Gate 3 on its own and provide my feedback directly based on what I find fitting or not fitting within the game itself, but never by comparing Baldur's Gate 3 to X or Y game because that would serve no purpose nor credibility. At the end of the day the reality of things is that no matter what, there will always be those who like and dislike the game. For every person that dislikes Baldur's Gate 3 there will be tens of thousands who love it. Past great accomplishments or failures aside, you are being somewhat dismissive of a lot of negative feedback they got over time as if it was just a matter of being a D&D and/or a "classic BG" zealot.
How about acknowledging that people are not just saying "X is bad" but going to great lengths to point EXACTLY what's bad with what they are critizing.
Imagine how many of the often abominable choices that were present in the first EA build (Healing food, jump as a convenient disengage and walking around a character to get advantage come to mind) would have made into release (making the game significantly worse) if hordes of EA testers didn't get very vocal against their existence. Respectfully it would be far more constructive if you simply used all that energy to support the OP in his request to gain some clarification, than latch onto my comment and dissect DOS2. Twice now. I don't use DOS2 as ultimate evidence that they can do no wrong, hell the entire reason why I joined these forums is because they did something that I and plenty of others disagree with. I merely mention DOS2 as an example that they know how to make really great and enjoyable games which hundreds of thousands of people really love and enjoy, even those who previously didn't like turn-based games. This is a FACT. It's an actual statistically backed up fact which can be easily proven by checking out Steam reviews. I understand you are very passionate about the things you dislike, but I do not understand why you keep feeling the need to rationalize your dislike towards certain features so extensively to me trying to prove me wrong and presenting your own gaming taste as facts. By all means dislike it all you want, it's your opinion and I'm sure other people agree with you. Personally I disagree with everything you said is wrong about it because I look at games artistically as a whole, not as systems and sub-systems. What you see as bad design, I see as something to conquer and conquered them I have. The only thing I disliked about DOS2 was inventory management which actually felt hindering due to the lack of the most basic PC controls, which BG3 also suffers from. Was it a bit of a nuisance? Yes, because I love looting everything. Did it make the game any less enjoyable? Hell no. I can't be bothered by it because I'm having such a good time. DOS2 was tremendously fun and enjoyable despite some minor shortcomings. So it's fine that you disagree and feel free to, but there's no need in directly trying to rationalize and convincing me that it's bad. It's bad to you, it's not bad to me. I love it and still play it as that's how it was intended. Same with the Chain system in another thread, in which I expressed my thoughts in as neutral way as I possibly could inside of a completely derailed thread originally about Patch 8 issues and left it at that. I noticed you're very passionate about disliking it and often keep mentioning it, which is why I never bothered saying anything further as it would serve no purpose and further derail that thread. I am not bothered by the Chain system as some are, in fact I even like it due to reasons which I clearly mentioned there. Some people dislike it and prefer precise movement with formations similar to other games... which is completely alright. I personally dislike formation movement, as I think it looks stupid and unnatural. A group of 4 moving as if they're a Roman Cohort. But I don't go extensively rationalizing my dislike directly to others and trying to prove them wrong. I said my opinion on it as neutrally as I can and that's it. What more is there to say. And no I am not dismissive of " constructive negative feedback" nor have implied that anywhere, as I am very active on these forums and participating in dozens of threads at once. There are plenty I agree with and plenty I disagree with, but I express my disagreement in a respectful and polite way, as all feedback should be. The point of my comment is that I am not a fan how some of the feedback is presented on the forums, which is either demeaning or passive-aggressive towards developers or other members of the community and ends up creating a bad vibe. This reply for example, serves no purpose as it is completely off-topic and a direct jab at me for something I said, with a completely missed point of what I meant. That was the whole point of my comment. Not to dismiss feedback, but to provide reasoning as to why the lack of communication might be there due to the vibe that surrounds this forum. Sure, I would love to hear Larian's thoughts and opinions on most of the suggested features and changes... but... I also understand why they wouldn't. They asked for negative feedback, not feedback that is negatively demeaning. Would you enthusiastically respond to feedback when it is being implied you're an incompetent monkey that doesn't know what they're doing? I certainly wouldn't and unfortunately I have years of experience dealing with such attitude for something I provided to communities for free. It's hard to deal with, especially when you have 3 different communities with vastly different wishes where X person wants true DnD, Y person wants Baldur's Gate and Z person wants whatever. In any case, that is all I have to say on the matter. If I wish to continue discussing these things, I'll join one of the threads discussing it and not as personal back and forths that are off-topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Respectfully it would be far more constructive if you simply used all that energy to support the OP in his request to gain some clarification, than latch onto my comment and dissect DOS2. Twice now. Respectfully, I don't think it should be your worry where I choose to "use my energy". I'm also not sure why you are suddenly acting as if you were somehow wronged. You made a specific point (TL;DR version: "Why won't people trust the creators of the amazing DOS 2 more?") and you got pertinent answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
Respectfully, I don't think it should be your worry where I choose to "use my energy".
I'm also not sure why you are suddenly acting as if you were somehow wronged. You made a specific point (TL;DR version: "Why won't people trust the creators of the amazing DOS 2 more?") and you got pertinent answers. Yup. This can count as speaking for me too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Mostly this is a request for respect that I believe is reasonably due to those of us who have paid for and have in good faith participated here in the spirit of helping the developers in their project. Don't we at least deserve that? No, you willingly bought a EA and knew what you were getting into. You, me, & everyone are not entitled to more than that. Basically bought a quarter of a game and became a beta tester if the person actually cared at some point during beta. A Q/A if it was going to happen, would of already did and past by now. How many months till full release? I haven't been paying attention if they gave one, guessing half a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
But when negative feedback is provided in a way that is demeaning, passive-aggressive or outright negative towards the developers or other members on this forum, that creates a toxic vibe which puts off people. I understand people are extremely passionate about the game and want it to be the best game ever, but passion can also be quite toxic and often ends up achieving the opposite effect. Respectfully, I can't see the relevance of this (which can be said of nearly any discussion forum) to the topic of this thread. Do you oppose the idea of Larian answering in their own way (through a Forum moderator for example) a few simple questions such as "Is the 4 member party a hard limit?" or "Are you actively working to increase maximum party size beyond its current limit of 4?" ? I think the Larian Development Team can handle that. As I said earlier I'm not advocating they come on here live for a punching bag session. Just clear up a few of the easier to clear up questions that are being discussed on the forums. I think it would be great, until we get questions like "do any of you even know how to code?". You don't have to read too many topics on this forum to find that question, or other similarly negative questions. What happens, really, when an answer is given that isn't popular, to use your own hypothetical: Yes, 4 is the hard limit for your party. You believe that people will just move on, and be done with it, and some most certainly will. Others? Not so much. A BioWare dev had to delete her social media because she commented that she'd like to see more story driven games with less combat and started getting regular death threats. She didn't say they were making such a game, just that she'd like to see some. Are there people here that would go that far? I don't know, but I read a lot more threads than what I comment in, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that some would. I know I've received some pretty "spicy" private messages here. Not that a Frequently Asked Questions scenario would be a bad thing, but even that could result in some bad things, if the answers aren't popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Off-topic replies are in spoilers, but I don't wish to derail the thread so please stick to the OP's topic instead. Putting this in spoilers because I do not wish this thread derailed from a request to get some clarification on certain discussions and features to dissection of my comment. This is all well and good for you. But what about those of us, like me, who are passionate fans of the original BG games and who have been waiting twenty years for that third game in the series, who are very excited at the prospect of finally having that third BG game, BUT who did NOT consider the D:OS games to be good games at all? It's not like we can just wait a few more years and expect someone else to give us that new BG game. This is it. There is no other possibility of a new BG game. So, as someone who did NOT see D:OS2 as a good game, but who as a huge fan of the original BG games very much wants to get a really good BG3 game, what exactly should I be doing here? The question is very broad as you didn't mention your true thoughts on the game itself, so all I can say is Baldur's Gate 3 is not the true spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate I & II and it never will be, especially 20 years later with a different developer. It plays nor feels nothing like the previous games and anyone looking for even remotely the same experience won't get it here. Only the old games can provide the experience the fans of those games are looking for. Personally I look at Baldur's Gate 3 on its own and provide my feedback directly based on what I find fitting or not fitting within the game itself, but never by comparing Baldur's Gate 3 to X or Y game because that would serve no purpose nor credibility. At the end of the day the reality of things is that no matter what, there will always be those who like and dislike the game. For every person that dislikes Baldur's Gate 3 there will be tens of thousands who love it. Past great accomplishments or failures aside, you are being somewhat dismissive of a lot of negative feedback they got over time as if it was just a matter of being a D&D and/or a "classic BG" zealot.
How about acknowledging that people are not just saying "X is bad" but going to great lengths to point EXACTLY what's bad with what they are critizing.
Imagine how many of the often abominable choices that were present in the first EA build (Healing food, jump as a convenient disengage and walking around a character to get advantage come to mind) would have made into release (making the game significantly worse) if hordes of EA testers didn't get very vocal against their existence. Respectfully it would be far more constructive if you simply used all that energy to support the OP in his request to gain some clarification, than latch onto my comment and dissect DOS2. Twice now. I don't use DOS2 as ultimate evidence that they can do no wrong, hell the entire reason why I joined these forums is because they did something that I and plenty of others disagree with. I merely mention DOS2 as an example that they know how to make really great and enjoyable games which hundreds of thousands of people really love and enjoy, even those who previously didn't like turn-based games. This is a FACT. It's an actual statistically backed up fact which can be easily proven by checking out Steam reviews. I understand you are very passionate about the things you dislike, but I do not understand why you keep feeling the need to rationalize your dislike towards certain features so extensively to me trying to prove me wrong and presenting your own gaming taste as facts. By all means dislike it all you want, it's your opinion and I'm sure other people agree with you. Personally I disagree with everything you said is wrong about it because I look at games artistically as a whole, not as systems and sub-systems. What you see as bad design, I see as something to conquer and conquered them I have. The only thing I disliked about DOS2 was inventory management which actually felt hindering due to the lack of the most basic PC controls, which BG3 also suffers from. Was it a bit of a nuisance? Yes, because I love looting everything. Did it make the game any less enjoyable? Hell no. I can't be bothered by it because I'm having such a good time. DOS2 was tremendously fun and enjoyable despite some minor shortcomings. So it's fine that you disagree and feel free to, but there's no need in directly trying to rationalize and convincing me that it's bad. It's bad to you, it's not bad to me. I love it and still play it as that's how it was intended. Same with the Chain system in another thread, in which I expressed my thoughts in as neutral way as I possibly could inside of a completely derailed thread originally about Patch 8 issues and left it at that. I noticed you're very passionate about disliking it and often keep mentioning it, which is why I never bothered saying anything further as it would serve no purpose and further derail that thread. I am not bothered by the Chain system as some are, in fact I even like it due to reasons which I clearly mentioned there. Some people dislike it and prefer precise movement with formations similar to other games... which is completely alright. I personally dislike formation movement, as I think it looks stupid and unnatural. A group of 4 moving as if they're a Roman Cohort. But I don't go extensively rationalizing my dislike directly to others and trying to prove them wrong. I said my opinion on it as neutrally as I can and that's it. What more is there to say. And no I am not dismissive of " constructive negative feedback" nor have implied that anywhere, as I am very active on these forums and participating in dozens of threads at once. There are plenty I agree with and plenty I disagree with, but I express my disagreement in a respectful and polite way, as all feedback should be. The point of my comment is that I am not a fan how some of the feedback is presented on the forums, which is either demeaning or passive-aggressive towards developers or other members of the community and ends up creating a bad vibe. This reply for example, serves no purpose as it is completely off-topic and a direct jab at me for something I said, with a completely missed point of what I meant. That was the whole point of my comment. Not to dismiss feedback, but to provide reasoning as to why the lack of communication might be there due to the vibe that surrounds this forum. Sure, I would love to hear Larian's thoughts and opinions on most of the suggested features and changes... but... I also understand why they wouldn't. They asked for negative feedback, not feedback that is negatively demeaning. Would you enthusiastically respond to feedback when it is being implied you're an incompetent monkey that doesn't know what they're doing? I certainly wouldn't and unfortunately I have years of experience dealing with such attitude for something I provided to communities for free. It's hard to deal with, especially when you have 3 different communities with vastly different wishes where X person wants true DnD, Y person wants Baldur's Gate and Z person wants whatever. In any case, that is all I have to say on the matter. If I wish to continue discussing these things, I'll join one of the threads discussing it and not as personal back and forths that are off-topic. +1
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I would like definitive answers to some questions as well, but you're not going to get it from Larian. You'll find out when the final game is supposedly delivered in 2023. It doesn't benefit Larian to definitely say: - "The reaction system is not able to fit into an alignment similar to Solasta."
- "We have no plans to re-visit Shove or Wet mechanics."
- or any other final confirmation because it loses potential customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2021
|
No, you willingly bought a EA and knew what you were getting into. You, me, & everyone are not entitled to more than that. That is a shockingly low bar. As players and customers we're definitely owed some engagement by the developers on the forum they specifically set up for this EA product, we've had none that I'm aware of. It's extraordinarily bad communications on their part and reflects poorly on them as a company. I can't think of any other game I've been involved in where the developers are essentially absent from their own forum. It's actually a little bizarre to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Yeah, let's be realistic, Larian stands to lose a lot more in this point in time from clearly answering things, rather than keeping things close to their chest until it's done (or not done). Especially as so many things change later in development and certain realities start to sink in.
Plus there's a lot of plausible deniability in all this. Let's say BA Shove was something that was always planned to just be BA for the EA testing period only, and they have always planned to revert it to a standard action once the full game is out and level 5+ is a thing. They get to reap bonus points from the community thinking that they changed it due to feedback. Not saying this is what is happening, but plausible deniability is a form of PR.
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 15/07/22 01:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think a Q/A session would be great, for us and for them.
We would be able to focus our feedback on where they can make a difference instead of wasting energy debating the usual 4 points, and they would be able to test and collect data for the features they are currently working on.
Sidenote:
I agree that we are not entitled to anything. We bought an EA game of our own free will and nobody ever promised us direct responses to our feedback.
At the same time, I think is a really poor marketing strategy for Larian to completely ignore those people who have spent premium money to buy an unfinished game just to help them make the best possible product.
I, for example, am pretty sure am never going to buy another EA game from them. Not because I dislike them or the game (I love both, even with their faults), but if I feel like my energies and words are falling on deaf ears, then I really don't want to spend any more time and money on an unfinished game.
I know my not buying another EA game from them is not going to make them shiver in fear of bankruptcy (not that I want that from them in the first place) but for them is a source of data less in the development of their next game.
And, again, for "falling on deaf ears" I don't mean they have to fulfil my every wish, just to let me (us) know that they have acknowledged the feedback and what is their standpoint on the aspect of the game they discuss.
Last edited by Sharet; 15/07/22 03:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
A Q/A session would also help to build hype. Much less impact than a PfH and Patch, but also much less effort on Larian's side. Yeah, let's be realistic, Larian stands to lose a lot more in this point in time from clearly answering things, rather than keeping things close to their chest until it's done (or not done). Especially as so many things change later in development and certain realities start to sink in.
Plus there's a lot of plausible deniability in all this. Let's say BA Shove was something that was always planned to just be BA for the EA testing period only, and they have always planned to revert it to a standard action once the full game is out and level 5+ is a thing. They get to reap bonus points from the community thinking that they changed it due to feedback. Not saying this is what is happening, but plausible deniability is a form of PR. Eh. That all might have been more true 1 or 2 years ago, when they knew less about the final game state and thus any statement about their plans had a big chance of being incorrect. But at this point, Larian should know what big mechanics are going to be in/out of the game, and personally, I'd prefer that Larian tells us in advance that "X mechanic will be changed for full release" rather than them just changing it at full release. Even saying "we're working on it due to the large amount of feedback about it, but no promises" would be better than silence imo. And at this point in development, even if they always planned on changing shove, they can already lie and say "Due to feedback over the past 2 years, we're changing it." That said, I do recognize the hostility and nastiness of Outraged Gamers™, so any Q&A should make sure to anonymize which developer is responding, at the very least. I agree that we are not entitled to anything. We bought an EA game of our own free will and nobody ever promised us direct responses to our feedback. At the same time, I think is a really poor marketing strategy for Larian to completely ignore those people who have spent premium money to buy an unfinished game just to help them make the best possible product. [...]
I, for example, am pretty sure am never going to buy another EA game from them. Not because I dislike them or the game (I love both, even with their faults), but if I feel like my energies and words are falling on deaf ears, then I really don't want to spend any more time and money on an unfinished game.
I know my not buying another EA game from them is not going to make them shiver in fear of bankruptcy (not that I want that from them in the first place) but for them is a source of data less in the development of their next game.
And, again, for "falling on deaf ears" I don't mean they have to fulfil my every wish, just to let me (us) know that they have acknowledged the feedback and what is their standpoint on the aspect of the game they discuss.
Well said! This basically captures my feelings on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Even saying "we're working on it due to the large amount of feedback about it, but no promises" would be better than silence imo. Swen said that already re: Reactions in a prior PFH and everyone took it and ASSUMED that Larian was going to eventually deliver Solasta-like reaction system. Notice on this recent PFH, he was much more careful about the topic of Reactions and glossed right over giving another update and/or promise that the final system would look different than what we saw. Honestly, some of the questions people are clamoring about actually have been answered somewhere. You're not getting a party of 6, RTWP, or a day/night cycle. There's no benefit to them saying anything else. They can't stay in EA forever and Larian has a history of biting off more than they can chew with overpromising and underdelivering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Even saying "we're working on it due to the large amount of feedback about it, but no promises" would be better than silence imo. Swen said that already re: Reactions in a prior PFH and everyone took it and ASSUMED that Larian was going to eventually deliver Solasta-like reaction system. Notice on this recent PFH, he was much more careful about the topic of Reactions and glossed right over giving another update and/or promise that the final system would look different than what we saw. Honestly, some of the questions people are clamoring about actually have been answered somewhere. You're not getting a party of 6, RTWP, or a day/night cycle. There's no benefit to them saying anything else. They can't stay in EA forever and Larian has a history of biting off more than they can chew with overpromising and underdelivering. The problem is that we haven't been told that the current reaction system IS the final one. If Swen came out and said that reactions won't change anymore (instead of very obviously avoiding any mention of reactions, which looks a bit guilty and cowardly), then sure we'd be mad, but no more mad than we'll be at full release if its still in this state. However, if there are still planned updates to the reaction system, then mentioning in the PfH they're still being worked on would make a lot of people happier. I'll concede RTWP (noting that RTWP is rarely mentioned nowadays), but actually day/night cycle is an example that shows the potential usefulness of Larian saying they won't do X and why. Larian has gone on record that they won't do a complicated time progression system where time actually passes incrementally as you play, along with a complex NPC routines that change realistically with said time. Also partially because it wouldn't work for multiplayer; players could proceed at different speeds depending on whether they were in TB or not. To which we can (and frequently have), as a community, respond: Hey Larian, none of those things you mentioned are important. You don't have to do this super complicated thing and make a 100% accurate time passage system. Instantly turning from day-to-night after e.g., 2 short rests or a dedicated "wait for night" button would be perfectly fine. And just tie everyone's time to the slowest player, so what if it's a bit inaccurate? And this is useful feedback for Larian to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Even saying "we're working on it due to the large amount of feedback about it, but no promises" would be better than silence imo. Swen said that already re: Reactions in a prior PFH and everyone took it and ASSUMED that Larian was going to eventually deliver Solasta-like reaction system. Notice on this recent PFH, he was much more careful about the topic of Reactions and glossed right over giving another update and/or promise that the final system would look different than what we saw. Honestly, some of the questions people are clamoring about actually have been answered somewhere. You're not getting a party of 6, RTWP, or a day/night cycle. There's no benefit to them saying anything else. They can't stay in EA forever and Larian has a history of biting off more than they can chew with overpromising and underdelivering. The problem is that we haven't been told that the current reaction system IS the final one. If Swen came out and said that reactions won't change anymore (instead of very obviously avoiding any mention of reactions, which looks a bit guilty and cowardly), then sure we'd be mad, but no more mad than we'll be at full release if its still in this state. However, if there are still planned updates to the reaction system, then mentioning in the PfH they're still being worked on would make a lot of people happier. I'll concede RTWP (noting that RTWP is rarely mentioned nowadays), but actually day/night cycle is an example that shows the potential usefulness of Larian saying they won't do X and why. Larian has gone on record that they won't do a complicated time progression system where time actually passes incrementally as you play, along with a complex NPC routines that change realistically with said time. Also partially because it wouldn't work for multiplayer; players could proceed at different speeds depending on whether they were in TB or not. To which we can (and frequently have), as a community, respond: Hey Larian, none of those things you mentioned are important. You don't have to do this super complicated thing and make a 100% accurate time passage system. Instantly turning from day-to-night after e.g., 2 short rests or a dedicated "wait for night" button would be perfectly fine. And just tie everyone's time to the slowest player, so what if it's a bit inaccurate? And this is useful feedback for Larian to have. So even when answers are given, if they're not what parts of the community want to hear, they don't move on, but instead continue to press the issue. What good would that Q&A do, given this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
|
I think a Q/A session would be great, for us and for them.
We would be able to focus our feedback on where they can make a difference instead of wasting energy debating the usual 4 points, and they would be able to test and collect data for the features they are currently working on.
Sidenote:
I agree that we are not entitled to anything. We bought an EA game of our own free will and nobody ever promised us direct responses to our feedback.
At the same time, I think is a really poor marketing strategy for Larian to completely ignore those people who have spent premium money to buy an unfinished game just to help them make the best possible product.
I, for example, am pretty sure am never going to buy another EA game from them. Not because I dislike them or the game (I love both, even with their faults), but if I feel like my energies and words are falling on deaf ears, then I really don't want to spend any more time and money on an unfinished game.
I know my not buying another EA game from them is not going to make them shiver in fear of bankruptcy (not that I want that from them in the first place) but for them is a source of data less in the development of their next game.
And, again, for "falling on deaf ears" I don't mean they have to fulfil my every wish, just to let me (us) know that they have acknowledged the feedback and what is their standpoint on the aspect of the game they discuss. Well said. I totally agree with you. I do not expect that they fulfill every wish. It would just be nice to get any response from the devs. A PFH every few month is nice (I really liked the last one) but it is strange that the devs do nothing in their own forums. Just a message "We know that players talk a lot about x,y and z. We are working on it, but no promises." would be nice.
 Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist World leading expert of artificial stupidity. Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already 
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Just a message "We know that players talk a lot about x,y and z. We are working on it, but no promises." would be nice. Why? What would be nice about that? Just having someone tell you that they heard you? Do you honestly think they haven't heard what some of the folks here are saying? Of course they have. I suspect that they're making decisions based off of data. They know, for instance, how many players are actually using shove as a bonus action, and they're factoring that into the balance of the game without having to rely on Mr.-Forum-Resident-Kruger to explain how it's "objectively" wrong. Not to mention, if they say, "We hear people saying A, B, and C," suddenly, all the folks screaming D are going to lose to their minds. Normally, I think open communication is great, but not in this case. Not when someone is being asked to acknowledge the select few folks who keep calling them incompetent writers and incapable coders. It's not even worth addressing that crowd, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
So even when answers are given, if they're not what parts of the community want to hear, they don't move on, but instead continue to press the issue. What good would that Q&A do, given this? It depends on the reasons given. E.g., If Larian doesn't implement a thing because they think the players want it implemented in a too-difficult way, then it is useful feedback to say "No, we think [this simpler way] is good enough." Changing our feedback to respond to Larian's Answers is not "pressing the [same] issue," but more like having an advancing conversation with Larian about improving the game. Essentially, direct acknowledgement of things the community finds important and reasonable explanations for current implementations would be nice. Larian repeating things in multiple interviews isn't the same as Q&A interactions, because it doesn't necessarily mean they've taken our feedback into between those two interviews. It's often reads as the same answer just rephrased. The community is also not a monolith. Obviously there will always be people who bring up dead subjects, but the goal is that enough people will stop pressing that the issue will die down. E.g., RtwP, once the biggest topic on this forum, is now mostly dead. I also acknowledge that a large part of my reasoning is: it'd just be nice to have closer contact with Larian devs and get more insight into their process and thoughts. Do I deserve such interaction with them? No. Do I want it and think it'd be cool? Yes. Do I think they'd benefit from the happiness and feelings of inclusion a Q&A would bring, resulting in an overall less unhappy playerbase? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
So even when answers are given, if they're not what parts of the community want to hear, they don't move on, but instead continue to press the issue. What good would that Q&A do, given this? It depends on the reasons given. E.g., If Larian doesn't implement a thing because they think the players want it implemented in a too-difficult way, then it is useful feedback to say "No, we think [this simpler way] is good enough." Changing our feedback to respond to Larian's Answers is not "pressing the [same] issue," but more like having an advancing conversation with Larian about improving the game. Essentially, direct acknowledgement of things the community finds important and reasonable explanations for current implementations would be nice. Larian repeating things in multiple interviews isn't the same as Q&A interactions, because it doesn't necessarily mean they've taken our feedback into between those two interviews. It's often reads as the same answer just rephrased. The community is also not a monolith. Obviously there will always be people who bring up dead subjects, but the goal is that enough people will stop pressing that the issue will die down. E.g., RtwP, once the biggest topic on this forum, is now mostly dead. I also acknowledge that a large part of my reasoning is: it'd just be nice to have closer contact with Larian devs and get more insight into their process and thoughts. Do I deserve such interaction with them? No. Do I want it and think it'd be cool? Yes. Do I think they'd benefit from the happiness and feelings of inclusion a Q&A would bring, resulting in an overall less unhappy playerbase? Yes. So, the answer to my question seems to be "Not much". When I look at what we have now in game compared to what we had at launch, I can see a lot of changes that were implemented, and a lot of those came from here, or, at least, were discussed a lot here. So, the only real benefit would be stroking some poster's egos. That always feels good, I like it when people stroke my ego, but in so far as game development goes, I don't really want it, or need it. The end result will be something I like, and I really hope it is, or it won't. I don't need them explaining why something will or won't be changed, if I can play it, and see that it makes sense. A good example would be the "playersexuality" of the companions. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it's done the way it is, and I don't need a Q&A session to have that question answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
So, the answer to my question seems to be "Not much". When I look at what we have now in game compared to what we had at launch, I can see a lot of changes that were implemented, and a lot of those came from here, or, at least, were discussed a lot here. So, the only real benefit would be stroking some poster's egos. That always feels good, I like it when people stroke my ego, but in so far as game development goes, I don't really want it, or need it. The end result will be something I like, and I really hope it is, or it won't. I don't need them explaining why something will or won't be changed, if I can play it, and see that it makes sense. A good example would be the "playersexuality" of the companions. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it's done the way it is, and I don't need a Q&A session to have that question answered. I mean, maybe. We can't really tell without having a Q&A and seeing the result. Some of it would certainly depend on how well Larian answers the questions: are the answers fairly vague and not satisfactory, or are they detailed with at least understandable reasons? It's dismissive to assert the only reason for a Q&A is to validate egos for participating in EA and providing feedback (which, fair, is partly a reason). But I'm also honestly curious about Larian's process and reasons, and I do think some of Larian's responses would lead to more useful feedback. And imo, many of the people who would get mad at Larian's Q&A responses are probably already miffed at Larian rn, so I don't think a Q&A would hurt much. It's likely that the mollified people would outnumber the people who get angrier.
|
|
|
|
|
