Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Fextralive on the size/replayability/reactivity of BG3 - Spoiler

Because he is genuinely excited to play this game and he truly thinks it will be the game of the year? And it makes me wonder why people like you are trying to twist every piece of news in an atempt to take away enjoyment from others?

Okay folks.

It is fine for anyone to be excited and positive for the game (I know I am), and also fine not to be. Let’s not be down on anyone for either position. We all are entitled to our preferences.

Well its the video series by Cas from Fextralife on the Youtube page. The wiki - which is community run like any wiki - is different.

This exactly. Say there are three possible main endings. Multiply by origin characters, then multiply by PC classes for slight variation, then multiply by races for slight variation.

3*6 + 3*30*40 is 3,618

I think her not being able to answer off the top of her head was not having a calculator handy

While I personally side with you in that the 17000 endings claim is inaccurate, I feel like this is an unfair remark against the guy just because he has a different opinion than you in another matter, him liking the idea of easy respecs has absolutely nothing to do with him providing precise information. Also, consider the field he works in, accessible respecs will make his job a lot easier.

This seems close to the mark. If there are 17,000 endings, most of them have to be based on trivial things, not major decisions. So z*x*y*a=17,000. We know there are 10 or more story companions, so we can chop off a zero to account for character composition. Then we have x*y*a=1,700, where an are specific story decisions. We can imagine that race or class likely play some role in the ending, and if not both, then certainly dialogue tags associated with those races or classes. So we can likely chop off 2 more zeroes as the multiple of potential tags with each other. So I think saying there are maybe 17 decisions of varying significance seems like a reasonable number.

If you subtract origin specific endings, number gets to like 11, which is very believable.

I think they should have kept numbers out of it, but again, the people they're trying to hype and the journalists won't be sitting there thinking, "so..that's 14 variables, that's not that much actually", they'll be saying "HOLY SHIT, THAT REACTIVITY THOUGH!!!", so it serves its purpose for marketing.

Maybe it's good short term and bad long term but at the end of the day I don't really think it's going to make that much of a difference either way. I just think those ''technically bloated'' numbers are going to set some expectations that are not going to be met, and they actually had to explain the 175h of cinematics on the PFH because it was missleading some people already.

Agreed, the game is already super impressive as is, in my opinion putting numbers like these in the spotlight can be counterproductive since they can create unreasonable expectations. On the other hand, I've seen a couple pages use these numbers to headline articles about the game, so maybe it helps the game reach even more players. It could go well, it could go not so well, or maybe it doesn't even make a difference, I guess only time will tell if it was a good decision.

Yeah I’m noting similar math on the subreddit concerning alignment. 10+ mostly distinct endings is still more than enough to be notable, so I think they should’ve gone with that number. Worried about Larian Cyberpunking their own game here with creating unattainable hype.

This game isn’t going to give people’s life meaning. It’s not going to cure cancer. It’s not going to change RPGs forever. All this game needs to do is be a highly reactive, highly engaging RPG that sticks the landing in story and gameplay.

It's weird that people are dogging on Fextra for the 17,000 endings comment when he literally says they are endings with minor differences, and he made a distinction between them and actual major endings which he couldn't get an answer on.

You people are just looking to be mad at someone, I know it's Monday but damn.

I think most of us here blamed Larian for those claims and I'm not even mad, I just said I don't think is a good move to say such things xD

What do YOU mean you people?!

loved that show lol

ish? He said minor differences without elaborating. "Minor" in this context means one tiny details from the other configurations that have every other tiny detail identical, across a large array of variables. "Minor" usually means "not that big of a deal". In this case, minor means "you might not actually notice if you aren't looking for it."

And it's to my mind nothing against Larian. If they know they can give this highly amusing numbers to people who will repeat them uncritically, that's how the game is played. I almost wonder if it's intentional, because they know us forum nerds will geek out on the math, and *just* *keep* *talking* *about* *the* *game*.

Either Larian are constantly rolling nat 20s on marketing, or their marketing department are all very high level.

The point of his article was the sheer scope and size of potential outcomes being unmatched - the replayability will be insane. No not all will cope with replaying such a huge game multiple games …but many of us who have been around since day one of ea and watched the progress of this game will ..and knowing the amount of potential reactivity this game offers is just a revelation.