I really appreciate you writing this. It perfectly illustrates almost every single issue I have with the game. Yes, I liked the mechanics, the combat, the interesting items that they designed, the companions, but this post speaks to me on a deeper level. After a few days of stewing on the story, and the changes from EA, little things like Gale needing specific items and if not fed he would go to Raphael to Astarion embracing the powers or wanting to, all of the more somber elements that we became familiar with in the EA were all changed, the Emperor replaced Daisy and you can see as you roll later into the game how his story comes apart due to a last minute addition. The story is...lacking, which is such a strange thing as there are only a few cRPGs I can name off hand that were truly fun but had as many plot holes, story inconsistencies, and downright immersion breaking moments due to the story. It's rare. Anyway, thanks for this write-up, it sums up how I felt perfectly.
No problem. I sent Larian something similar shortly after I finished my first playthrough and I hope they read it in the spirit which it was intended. On the one hand, we got a great look behind the curtain as far as game development goes with BG3's Early Access period. On the other, the changes that Larian made were somewhat astounding. I understand that things get changed, some things just don't work out, feedback is taken under consideration -- but I'd really like Larian to explain the significant shift in narrative tone from a moody atmosphere with difficult choices to a more epic heroic fantasy vibe.
I've mentioned a few times on the forums that something had to lead to such sweeping changes, but I don't think we'll ever be able to determine what. I've suspected it could've been the long rest system (still basically clunky and unworkable since EA) specifically, as I could see why you'd drastically simplify the Daisy/illithid power stuff given how much of an issue it was, or it could've been a more pragmatically cynical direction to basically go, look, 97.65% of our players only go through the good guy path, so let's not waste too many resources on anything else, and let's make that heroic experience as thorough as possible. I could also buy that Wizards decided that maybe Daisy was not acceptable in a mainstream game for the DnD brand, and that left Larian scrambling to try and make
something fit there.
Problem is, all the thoughts I have just lead to more questions. Everyone knew the long rest system was a problem from the early days of EA, so why didn't Larian really devote time to figuring it out? Why didn't they implement Daisy slightly outside your camp, like they did Raphael, or provide more structure to the opening segment (have you meet her before you wake up on the beach, for example.) If they pivoted hard to 'good guy epic fantasy', then why didn't they know that from the start? Why even create something darker and moodier? If Wizards made a very late call, well, same issue -- was Wizards not paying attention to anything prior? Surely Larian had given them a detailed pitch and briefing.
What bothers me, however, is perhaps the most pessimistic possibility: that Larian got spooked by loud naysayers and conducted extensive slash-and-burn edits at the drop of the hat. The original narration was a little goofy, yeah, but I know I went from someone who didn't care much about the change from varied narrators to one (Amelia Tyler) after Chubblot did a video showing off just how extensive that original narration was. And what's bothersome about this is that having the origin characters narrate their own stories seems like such a central pillar of even playing through as one of them, that I'm shocked that Larian cut it all out even though thousands and thousands of lines were already implemented. Like, what happened? Now, if you play as an origin character, you just kind of get less of them. And I dare say that, had the story really involved Daisy as the Absolute and the gradual loss of your mind and soul as you used the illithid powers, then a character narrating their own adventures would probably have powerful resonance.
And there's a lot of elements like this. The voice you hear in character generation is the voice of the Absolute, although you only learn that when you hear the Absolute speak to you later in the game. In EA, the Absolute was asking you, "Who are you? Who do you dream of at night?" It's very clear that Daisy was supposed to be connected to the Absolute. You can't just swap out a representative of the major antagonist with someone who is supposed to be an ally. Larian has claimed that they rewrote Daisy because people didn't trust them, but people still don't trust the Guardian! No one ever was going to trust the dream visitor, but it was a bit more palatable when it was a 'deal with the devil' situation. And, again, the origin system seemed to tie into this given how the origin characters had a unique Daisy who they had some connection with.
That mention of a deal with the devil is important, however, because this is why they rewrote Wyll. Wyll's original EA storyline was basically a reflection for the player's relationship with Daisy, and his relationship with Mizora. At one point, he'd outright say something like, "I took a deal without knowing who was making it. I regret it and wish I could get out of it, but these awesome powers are really useful." His whole thing was about trying to get out of the deal before he couldn't. Sound familiar? There was a very powerful, interesting theme running through all the characters: what would you do to live another day, what would you sacrifice? Would you let someone with no medical training shove a pick in your eye? Would you take a deal with Raphael?Would you wear Omeluum's ring? Or would you try to toe the line, and maybe get one over your mysterious patron? It was there in your party members, too. Gale would consume powerful magic items, or sign his soul to Raphael. Astarion literally consumes blood and the abused could become the abuser. Lae'zel risks being sacrificed to Vlaakith. Shadowheart had given up her memories. Even Karlach's ending, with her dying surrounded by her friends on her own terms, gains powerful resonance when you consider she's the most moral character in the party. When faced with the prospect of turning to dark bargains or immoral solutions, she says, no I might die, but I'll die surrounded by my friends.
And what's annoying about these two rewrites in particular is that this Community Update is not the first time Larian's played the blame game with their fanbase. Daisy was apparently rewritten because players weren't engaging with the illithid powers -- yeah, because it seemed like a bad idea, but I still had planned to do one where I spurned Daisy and one where I didn't. Larian said they rewrote Wyll because he was the least-liked party member, although it's pretty clear it's more because of his thematic relevance toward the old story. But even then, there were other factors that I'd say affected things: Wyll was the straight man of the group, the sensible guy among a crew of weirdoes, and the last guy you could get access to in EA, and, yes, a black man. Then they rewrote him drastically, and he's still almost certainly the least-liked companion, and arguably far less interesting than his EA incarnation. So what was the point?
It just seems like they had a pretty solid idea of what Baldur's Gate 3 was going to be from a narrative standpoint, and at some point, for a reason they've never explained, they threw it out. As someone who fell in love with the glimpses we got in Early Access, it was disappointing to get what, as a friend termed it, Baldur's Gate 3: Dragon Age Edition. Had Baldur's Gate 3 continued with what it seemed like was there -- party members with their own agendas, ones you had to work with to open up, who'd try and solve their own issues, etc, tadpole consequences, meaningful choices, -- then I'd genuinely say we'd have gotten the 10/10 paradigm shift that industry people were literally griping about on social media. As it is, it's a 8/10 with some great aspects (voice acting, for one) but really doesn't do much beyond the three-act 'save the world with your pals' structure that Bioware pioneered years ago, and has some of the shakiest third act/climax stuff this side of Obsidian.
This stuff was voice acted and animated and implemented. It was all there. It took more work to rerecord it and change it than just to leave it in. And that, to me, suggests that there was some big issue behind the scenes that led to a wholesale narrative readjustment. It's Larian's prerogative to make the changes they want during EA, but I really doubt that
anyone in EA would've realistically predicted that they were going to gut things that were already in the game. That songs like Down by the River would have no relevance. That everything with Daisy would've been reduced to 'trust me, bro, eat the tadpoles, collect all the powers.' My understanding is that DOS2, a game I enjoyed, didn't have anything nearly as wide-ranging in changes between EA and release. And I'd just really like to know what led to BG3 going the way it did, if only to have some kind of measure as to whether I'll pay for an EA product from Larian again.
There's a whole conversation here about artistic intent and integrity versus audience reception and desires, and seeing Larian seemingly bend so sharply is less than ideal. It'd be nice to know what Larian learned from this, because there's no way that implementing varied narrations, Daisy, companion subplots, and whatever else, only to rip them out maybe twelve months out from release was ever their original plan. Knowing the lessons learned by Larian would do a lot to know what to expect from them in the future.
