A couple of weeks ago, Sven mentioned on his Twitter page that he couldn't wait to call back the voice actors...now it has been revealed that ALL 6 origin companions plus the Guardian, have been called back so obviously we are going to be getting new content.
But the interesting thing is that throughout the entire 6 year development of BG3, there was never a time when ALL of them were in the same room together...until now.
Would this new content be for something like end scenes and dialogue and Act 3 padding like Karlack's revised ending, which by the way, this is at least the 2nd time that the actress has been called back, the first time to do Karlack's revised ending and now a second time with the rest of the cast.
If it is just to add scenes and dialogue here and there, then I think we could get the new content fairly soon, maybe before the end of the year and the Xbox launch, but if that's the case, why call the entire cast at the same time to do the voice acting and motion capture rather than calling them in one by one like when they called back Karlack's actress earlier?
Or is the entire cast being called back because they are cooking something for a future DLC or the Definitive Edition in which case it means we're not going to see it for awhile?
Watch the video from 0:34 to 1:25. The actors for all 6 origin characters plus the Guardian are being very coy as to why they are gathered together, mentioning that this is the first time that they are all in the same room and saying that there is nothing to see here and that it must be a coincidence that they just happen to be meeting together.
EDIT: Sorry folks, I confused the Guardian with the Narrator. All 6 origin companions and the Narrator (not the Guardian) were called back.
Last edited by Spartacii; 15/09/2303:50 AM. Reason: Info Correction
This would be encouraging, and I would love to see them all back in the studio!
But it's also reading quite a bit into that brief video. Like if it was clearly in a recording studio and not backstage at Insomnia the Gaming Festival UK, or if the post was made by Larian's own account.
It's pretty tough to get reliable information on BG3. Virtually evey article I've read this past month is some version of summarizing reddit speculations, or just rehashing what we're posting about here in a vacuum. The journalistic rigor in some of the BG3 'click me' articles that google serves up is almost non existant. You get a lot winning phrases like "BG3 players all agreee that..." and then they'll "cite" some random post on Reddit or whatever hehe. Like ok computer, got it, but can we dig a little deeper here? That said if this sort of thing builds a groundswell of support for calling the principles back in for more VA that would be spectacular!
Winke's original tweet comments were in the context of fixing the Minthara bug and endings in general. The only new content will be the result of re-writing lines of dialogue to reflect the fixing of Minthara's bug and tweaks to endings.
This would be encouraging, and I would love to see them all back in the studio!
But it's also reading quite a bit into that brief video. Like if it was clearly in a recording studio and not backstage at Insomnia the Gaming Festival UK, or if the post was made by Larian's own account.
It's pretty tough to get reliable information on BG3. Virtually evey article I've read this past month is some version of summarizing reddit speculations, or just rehashing what we're posting about here in a vacuum. The journalistic rigor in some of the BG3 'click me' articles that google serves up is almost non existant. You get a lot winning phrases like "BG3 players all agreee that..." and then they'll "cite" some random post on Reddit or whatever hehe. Like ok computer, got it, but can we dig a little deeper here? That said if this sort of thing builds a groundswell of support for calling the principles back in for more VA that would be spectacular!
Fingers crossed!
It's hard to get reliable information on ANYTHING these days. Everyone is just writing clickbait and rehashing old news. Many online contributors have no integrity.
Well this is encouraging. It still has to come out on Mac and Xbox of course but I do think they will flesh out Act 3 a LOT more. There is stuff in Act 3 that indicates more was meant to exist.
Swen seems like he's actually rather level-headed about the game, which is a good sign. There's still much to do for it to truly become a masterpiece.
Though I can't help but think that the overall lack of transparency during EA was a sign of a very messy development, perhaps due to Larian growing to big to effectively manage they way they were used to before? Or maybe design and vision differences. Regardless, the game's development seemed like it was even more tumultuous than Larian's previous titles, and they went through lots of iterations and discarded concepts.
just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10. the performance and frame rate is god awful. 18FPS for real. and that's using an RTX3090. bear in mind in cyberpunk it's 100FPS in ultra. ACT 3 looks really dated. apart from that ACT 3 seems very unpolished. many conversations with the NPCs are just one-liner. even some comedian quests when did correctly rewards nothing.
it's quite clear that they rushed this out to beat Starfield release date and Larian somehow succeeded. most reviewrs probably didn't make past ACT 2 i believe.
just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10.
First I have learned to ignore reviewers that give 10/10 or 1/10 ratings, especially if they give them more than once ever year or so. The reason is a 10/10 should reflect a perfect game that needs nothing done (maybe some MINOR tweaking) and such a game has never existed. The same with 1/10 which is a game (IMO) have has ZERO redeeming qualities, I have never seen a game that bad, all have something, even if it is just minor, that could make it fun.
Having played through the whole game, a 5/10 score is LOW, I would still go 7.5 to even 8 out of ten as the game is very well done, even with the flaws. There is no way I would go higher than 8 unless the third act is revised and the game optimized. As for the performance, PART of the blame for that lies with the hardware enthusiast community that has lied to gamers, telling them that the GPU is the be all/end all for building a gaming PC. To many people have unbalanced builds. Also RPGs have always been more CPU heavy than shooters, which is what is used in the majority of hardware benchmarking.
Also you mentioned Starfield, while direct comparisons are really bad as these are two very different styles of gaming, I found Starfield to be boring and just poorly made. They are using an ANCIENT game engine that is obviously way past it's prime and an open "world" that feels empty compared to many other RPGs. Not to mention massively glaring poor design choice such as not giving you an in game map for moving around the city. Even if you have to discover the locations, a map showing the way around would be awesome, plsu this is the future, hell we have a map on our phones today.
just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10.
First I have learned to ignore reviewers that give 10/10 or 1/10 ratings, especially if they give them more than once ever year or so. The reason is a 10/10 should reflect a perfect game that needs nothing done (maybe some MINOR tweaking) and such a game has never existed. The same with 1/10 which is a game (IMO) have has ZERO redeeming qualities, I have never seen a game that bad, all have something, even if it is just minor, that could make it fun.
Having played through the whole game, a 5/10 score is LOW, I would still go 7.5 to even 8 out of ten as the game is very well done, even with the flaws. There is no way I would go higher than 8 unless the third act is revised and the game optimized. As for the performance, PART of the blame for that lies with the hardware enthusiast community that has lied to gamers, telling them that the GPU is the be all/end all for building a gaming PC. To many people have unbalanced builds. Also RPGs have always been more CPU heavy than shooters, which is what is used in the majority of hardware benchmarking.
Also you mentioned Starfield, while direct comparisons are really bad as these are two very different styles of gaming, I found Starfield to be boring and just poorly made. They are using an ANCIENT game engine that is obviously way past it's prime and an open "world" that feels empty compared to many other RPGs. Not to mention massively glaring poor design choice such as not giving you an in game map for moving around the city. Even if you have to discover the locations, a map showing the way around would be awesome, plsu this is the future, hell we have a map on our phones today.
Agreed, you've made some great points here.
As it stands, BG3 has done some things in a game that I've never experienced and I've played all the "major" RPG's and my favorite games of all time are from those. But some of the moments of BG3 dwarf what they were able to do. You can tell so much thought went into this game...
But, like you said, it isn't a 10/10 and in my mind, I would rate it higher than an 8 but not quite a 9. My standards for games come from the degree to which I've had fun with it and BG3 is the first game in years I've dedicated all of my free time to beating.
That said, I wish to god they'd fix Act 3 and the endings. The companions become irrelevant and don't say anything and the plot flies off a cliff. Its just like where I gave Game of Thrones a 9/10 score up until season 7 and beyond and then it dropped to an 8/10. Those last 2 seasons really sucked and unfortunately, Act 3 follows a similar pattern...
just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10.
First I have learned to ignore reviewers that give 10/10 or 1/10 ratings, especially if they give them more than once ever year or so. The reason is a 10/10 should reflect a perfect game that needs nothing done (maybe some MINOR tweaking) and such a game has never existed. The same with 1/10 which is a game (IMO) have has ZERO redeeming qualities, I have never seen a game that bad, all have something, even if it is just minor, that could make it fun.
Having played through the whole game, a 5/10 score is LOW, I would still go 7.5 to even 8 out of ten as the game is very well done, even with the flaws. There is no way I would go higher than 8 unless the third act is revised and the game optimized. As for the performance, PART of the blame for that lies with the hardware enthusiast community that has lied to gamers, telling them that the GPU is the be all/end all for building a gaming PC. To many people have unbalanced builds. Also RPGs have always been more CPU heavy than shooters, which is what is used in the majority of hardware benchmarking.
Also you mentioned Starfield, while direct comparisons are really bad as these are two very different styles of gaming, I found Starfield to be boring and just poorly made. They are using an ANCIENT game engine that is obviously way past it's prime and an open "world" that feels empty compared to many other RPGs. Not to mention massively glaring poor design choice such as not giving you an in game map for moving around the city. Even if you have to discover the locations, a map showing the way around would be awesome, plsu this is the future, hell we have a map on our phones today.
I don't know. I'm sure it varies from person to person, but due to bugs and performance issues I found that act 3 was, at some points, borderline unplayable. And even if it were COMPLETELY bug-free, there is still a HUGE decline in quality both in combat and storytelling. Maybe things have improved (I have not made my way back to act 3 since my first playthrough). But act 3 is a huge chunk of the game, and it became a humongous slog to me. Quite frankly, it just seemed like it wasn't finished and barely tested. I think that a humongous portion of the game being in that state justifies the score being dropped to a 6/10, even if I thought act 1 was for the most part fantastic. But then that's the problem with reducing your evaluation of an entire game to a single score; it's a very low-dimensional metric for what is inherently a high-dimensional thing (an honest evaluation of a game's quality.) But yes, in general do not trust people who give perfect scores or "perfectly bad" scores. In fact, you should keep in mind everyone who gave bg3 a 10/10 or a 5/5, because frankly they blatantly proved their untrustworthiness. With the state act 3 was in, there was simply *no way* this game warranted a perfect score.
Yes, I'd love to play as a goblin, hobgoblin, or tabaxi! And a harengon? While it's unlikely they'll include every race, having a diverse selection would definitely enhance the experience. Moreover, some more voices to match all the different types of characters a player can create.
I am a little surprised to see all the Act 3 performance complaints, though I have played on a somewhat below-the-specs PC (8 Gb VRAM, 32 Gb RAM, Ryzen 7), capping the framerate to 40 and turning the FSR on - still, the game ran smoothly and never once crashed.
Are people too proud to turn the settings down a notch?
I am a little surprised to see all the Act 3 performance complaints, though I have played on a somewhat below-the-specs PC (8 Gb VRAM, 32 Gb RAM, Ryzen 7), capping the framerate to 40 and turning the FSR on - still, the game ran smoothly and never once crashed.
Are people too proud to turn the settings down a notch?
Complaints isn't about performance, its unfinished content.
