Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is BG3 bad for the genre?

Just play the two finder games (which are closer to BG2 than BG3 is anyway). And I think that nearly all of the companions in those games are better then the BG3 compa ions except maybe Sosiel or Harrim. Even secondary companions like Aivu are better than half the BG3 cast combined.

Fortunately we have all sorts of RPGs to play, all with their different pros and cons, and catering to different preferences. Personally, I liked the Pathfinder games, especially WotR, but like the BG3 characters, writing, story and very definitely combat and gameplay far more (I found the combat such a bore in Kingmaker that I gave up, and while I finished WotR there were times when I found it an absolute grind, which I never have with BG3). Disco Elysium is in my view a masterpiece, and its writing is far superior to most other games, and certainly to that of any RPG I’ve ever played. But then that’s its focus and in it we don’t have nearly the scope or freedom that BG3 gives us. And there are plenty of other RPGs, eg the PoE and D:OS games, that are definitely worth a go and have some fantastic elements. And I’m sure the ones I’ve not even got round to playing, such as Tyranny and embarrassingly Skyrim, have things to enjoy and that other games can learn from.

But for all I’d agree there are plenty of individual things that other games do better than BG3, and that BG3 still has too many bugs, the epilogue is an anti-climax and the plot coherence leaves something to be desired, it’s still my favourite of the bunch right now. And the fact it does lots of things really well in my view and so many things engagingly if not brilliantly, for me make it a winner over games that are more limited in scope or ambition.

But I think its success can only be good for the genre, bringing in more players and investment as well as providing an exemplar of what can be done, mainly well and sometimes badly. Sure, some unimaginative studios and developers might just try to copy the BG3 “formula” but if so then I’d doubt they had the passion to make a great game anyway. I’d hope that Larian and other studios that do have the passion and vision will capitalise on BG3’s success to bring us yet more fun and varied RPGs.

Yes, seconded.

It is precisely in story, characters (especially the companions), writing, dialogue options, and choices and consequences that BG3 is a huge failure for me.

The Finder games, ehhhhh...I like Kingmaker a lot more than WoTR. I do agree that in terms of main story arc they handily outdo BG3. Companions, though? I dunno, I really didn't like almost ANY of the companions in WoTR (a major way that game fell flat for me.) I'd say BG3 is on par with or exceeds the finder games when it comes to how likable the companions are. BG3 also outdoes (at least early on) the finder games with race-specific or class-specific reactivity.

You can please some people, some of the time.

Humans are strange little creatures, and that’s our greatest flaw.

Isn’t that right @rahaya

Gonna refer back to the start of this thread. BG3 has created an interest and discussion around CRPGs and this is ALWAYS good for the genre. The specifics of how good or bad you think BG3 is much less relevant than the fact the mainstream world of gaming has a lot more interest in the CRPG worlds.

Very much this. How often do we see any AAA CRPGs? Dragon Age after Origins always seemed embarrassed by its CRPG origins and moved further and further away from them. The next one is apparently going to be a full action RPG.

AAA CRPGs don’t really exist at all these days, so for one to come by and be so unrepentant about what it is is a triumph.

Perhaps.
I would argue against it being always good for the genre.

A hobby, topic or franchise going 'mainstream' does not usually mean an increase in depth or complexity. Quite the opposite. There is also the consideration of what is considered 'necessary' in bringing this niche thing up to 'par' with modern audiences which is often reflected in current modern adaptions or sequels where something being true to the originals is noteworthy.

There is also the simple fact of the matter is that BG3 is a Larian game. They have their own way of doing things that doesn't necessarily mean there is a crossover. If someone likes the Pathfinder games, I can be reasonably sure they have at least tried the Pillars games, Icewind Dale, BG 1 and 2, etc. If someone liked Divinity Original Sin 2, I am much less certain and would have a harder time recommending another game that isn't Divinity Original Sin 1.

An audience that has its attention turned to CRPGs by BG3, sure, some of them might go on to enjoy other CRPGs and get into that genre. Many won't. Because there is too much reading. Because the systems are too complex or obscure. Because the studios already in the sphere don't have the budget for cinematic gameplay. Full voice acting for Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire was directly cited as a detriment to the game by it's makers. There is no space for pure dungeon crawlers like Solasta. I keep seeing 'scope' or 'ambition' in relation to this, but it either never comes with any specifics in support of the position or it actually means 'budget for presentation of normal CRPG things.' Saying Larian had the ambition that Obsidian didn't, or made a game with more scope that Owlcat didn't, is honestly frustrating. Neither is true. It's just money. That's it. There is still going to be a large chasm of funds between those currently in the CRPG space and those that want to make a game for this new audience.

And to make sure they make back the investment, it's going to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Is there a reason why a new CPRG being pitched to a publisher in the post BG3 space isn't going to be pressured into maximum returns in order to get the deal?

BG3's success is not a win for 'CRPGs.' It's like saying Starcraft 2 was a win for RTS or WoW for MMOs. It's a win for Larian, for sure. That doesn't automatically translate into a good thing for the genre.

It moved away from it for the same reason Mass Effect became more action shooter than RPG.

Mainstream appeal.

BG3 is not unrepentant about being a CRPG. It uses 5e, which was already designed to be more mainstream and "streamlined" to begin with, and branching quest outcomes has been a thing in RPGs forever. The Witcher 3 is not a CRPG and arguably has more choice and consequence regarding its ending than BG3 does. What is the CRPG only feature here? Party members? Turn Based Combat?

Just by reading the title, my eyes rolled up inside my skull. How can a critically acclaimed game, both by the public and the critics, be bad for a genre? What is the problem? That people will want deeper and better interactions with NPCs? That there are some very rare and optional romantic scenes? That it is pleasing for somebody who isn't a jaded old gamer who keep complaining at anything that doesn't exactly look like what they played 30 years ago? I feel like some people only see the rare negative points about the game and chose to ignore anything that makes it an alien in the current gaming landscape. BG3 is a dream come true for the CRPG genre. A game that reminds everyone that the genre not only exists, but that it can produce the greatest games of its respective generation.

Mass Effect exists.

And greatest is highly debatable. Especially when those proclaiming it such just conveniently forget about other games doing the thing they just praised better.

The answer to your question is: Tedious gatekeeping.

Well, I don't know about that (though I find the arguments of a lot of people in here myopic.)

On the one hand, you could say that for a genre that has wandered the wilderness as long as cRPGs have, anything with the success of BG3 is great. It will inspire others to make similar games; even if you don't like all of them, you are certain to like some.

On the other hand....

What made BG3 actually good? What made it so successful, where other cRPGs are not?

I've been thinking about this a lot. Because in a lot of ways, compared to other cRPGs....BG3 is actually pretty mediocre. The setting is generic fantasy, not particularly interesting. The story is...I hate to say it, but the story of this game really is not very good, imo. I'd say it's "below average." The combat system copies from 5e and for a window of a few levels it's pretty fun....but it quickly becomes unbalanced, making combat tedious (because it's far too easy), and the ways in which it becomes unbalanced are usually due to very unwise homebrew rules Larian implemented. Background lore is kind of lacking (and a lot of things in the timeline leading up to the game don't seem to make sense.) Romances are...okay, but definitely not anything special. Same goes for the actual character writing.

So in what ways did BG3 excel? Encounter design, at least early on. They give a lot of options for dealing with a problem. It's also just fun to explore the world. The environments look crisp, great, beautiful (most of the time.) VAs and seeing the characters emote breathes a lot of life into the characters. The character writing itself isn't great, but the VAs and just seeing them move and visibly *seeing* their emotions makes the characters so much more expressive and likable. I've said before that, just going purely by his writing, I'd probably hate Gale's guts. But his VA makes him an actual likable character.

The thing is, anyone who makes cRPGs is going to try to learn from the experience of BG3. They're going to ask themselves: "What did BG3 do right? How can we better reallocate our limited resources so we can recreate the success of BG3?" And I think it's not an entirely unfounded worry that, looking at BG3, some people may conclude "You know, background lore, writing, a fine-tuned combat system? These things seem to be less important than hiring celebrity voice actors and having mocap."

And that's not even to say that what Larian was doing was superficial. I think making the characters more expressive exposed a GIGANTIC weakness and blind spot that other cRPGs have struggled with. Static portraits and paper dolls really are just not that good for connecting with characters. But I would actually be pretty sad if other creators of cRPGs focused on that, and saw their writing deteriorate to Larian's level, just because that's what seemed successful.

That's why I hope people don't overinterpret BG3's success. I think the game is terribly overhyped; that a lot of the praise for it comes from people projecting their hopes onto it, as some sort of symbol to rally around, against what they see as the shortcomings of other, larger game developers. I think in the end things will be okay, because the simple success of BG3 will just inspire tons of other cRPGs, and I think it's a clear signal that there's a large market for game developers to be a little experimental, a little less conservative with their offerings. I hope those things happen. What I hope doesn't happen is that people see Larian as a studio to emulate too closely. Because imo, they make highly flawed games.

^ This.

There is also the fact of the matter that on the production side of things, giving it acclaim means any and everyone can dismiss complaints about overpromising or the 'release it now, fix it later' meta. Because the double standards on that front is now blatant as hell. I dock points from every game for releasing buggy, but I have to point out again, the Eurogamer review actually hit a game breaking bug that prevented her from finishing the game. She was ATTACKED for lowering her score because of it.

The discourse around the game borders on nonsensical. It's not a polished, bug-free game. 'No microtransactions' means...what? Didn't we already go through this with Fallen Order being a single player RPG without extras? Something CRPGs don't have as a genre to begin with? A game of this scope...what scope? 80+ hours for a playthrough is normal for CRPGs. 'What passion can do for a game' - okay, bullshit. All the passion in the world doesn't conjure up millions of dollars to make a CRPG and secondly the AAA space still has plenty of good games. Why is any of this being said?

Why is getting an explanation of what BG3 does really well as a game, not 'at first', not 'occasionally', WELL like pulling teeth?

In terms of what BG3 does the most successfully that no other game does: co-operative narrative gameplay.

Here is an example from my game.

Me and three friends, all table top gamers. I’ve played extensively but my friends are going in blind. Thus, I try not to meta play too much and let my friends figure out what’s going on.

We were infiltrating the wizard tower in the underdark. Everyone was low on resources, so this was the last thing we would do before a long rest.

I’m playing a wizard. I had my familiar guide the rogue up to the front door, but he took too much damage along the way and got stuck inside the first level.

But with the turrets swiveled away, I was able to move my wizard to the back of the outer courtyard and then use feather fall to wizard my way to the backdoor. I cast knock to get inside and power down the defenses.

My friends all begin independently scrambling over the tower looting everything. One friend goes right for the top floor and triggers the fight. We were in no position to win that engagement, so I ran up and cast feather fall on my friends (the barbarian had also run up to try and assist only to get immediately brought down to 1 HP).

What ensued was a madcap dash down the tower as we were pursued by constructs, everybody taking a different route to try and avoid getting killed. We barely got out but finally did manage to evade our pursuers.

This was some of the most fun I’ve had in any online game, ever. The joy of chaos and somebody fucking up and then everyone needing to deal with it is very true to D&D. All of us had a fantastic time, even though we achieved nothing. It was great.

This isn’t the only thing I love about the game, but this is one area where nobody is even attempting what Larian is doing. I think a lot of people don’t appreciate how much inconspicuous design work is being demonstrated getting a game like this to work with 4 players. I have a lot of friends who work in AAA gaming, and BG3 is all they can talk about. They all wish they could work on a project like this.

This anecdote is also a great example of non-linear decision making. Most games give you linear decisions. If you play a Dragon Age title, the game asks you to make decisions- pick destinations, pick a class, pick a dialogue option, but in between those decisions the experience of playing the game is relatively straightforward.

In BG3 I was able to sneak up behind a major boss character with my monk, bypass the initial cutscene and stunning strike the boss, then just pound on him with everybody until he ignominiously died like a chump.

The game didn’t ask me to do this. There was no prompt. I just did it spontaneously. This is a major reason why BG3 has been such a success. This level of fidelity and production values is usually antithetical to BG3’s level of freedom. It ain’t perfect, but most people playing the game are enjoying the experience.

I mean....being able to initiate combat with enemies on your own terms isn't exactly new. This isn't really an innovation in the genre, so I have a hard time thinking that it's the reason for Larian's success.
But you do point out something else: Multiplayer. Most cRPGs are designed as single player experiences. I haven't played multiplayer yet, but everything is more fun with friends (and it's likely more challenging, too.)

I wonder what the stats are for how many people are playing multiplayer. Becuase this sort of goes back to what I said before, about the allocation of resources. If other designers conclude that multiplayer is the route to take, and the single-player experience suffers as a result, I'd be pretty sad about that.

Cool, thank you. No it does not have to be perfect, just well. That is something BG3 does well, but I do have to point out that such things is Larian's niche. DoS 1 and 2 are the same way, all the way down to the cutscene cheese with the difference being that it is not an isometric small sprite game. I have already filed that under Larian's engine/environmental interactivity but I can delineate it further for co-op specifically though I doubt that has factored much into scoring in the broad sense.

Was the narrative you were playing through coherent and compelling? Was the combat challenging but balanced for all 4 of you playing together? How was the UI for playing in co-op? How was the stability/bugs/performance? Did the game explain itself well when you made characters or did you have to rely on prior knowledge/googling? The question is not whether or not the game is enjoyable. It certainly is. But as I pointed out in my first posts, you can enjoy the everliving fuck out of a 7/10 game because DnD with friends in videogame form is your shit, but that is giving awards based on what it is, rather than how well it's made. It's the equivalent of giving Forza 5 a 10/10 because it is definitely a racing game. If it was the first racing game on the planet, does it automatically get an advantage on review scores rather than it being a reason the reviewer recommends the game if you are a fan of Fast and Furious?

It is already suffering in BG3. The party/inventory system is the way it is because that is Larian's design philosophy for co-op play.

I'd argue with the points made above that the writing can be quite good when it doesn't:

- overexplain things to the player (via the much-too-overused narrator);
- trip over itself (like how you can learn what the Absolute is from some documents in the Moonrise only to be "surprised" an hour or so later);
- feel like it's stitched together in a hurry (the epilogue... oh, the epilogue. And the Emperor);
- become Reddit meme level of text quality ("hot githyanki girlfriend" had me do a double take. It's ME3/Inquisition all over again...);

For example, the Reythwin area is rather well-done prior to the Moonrise. The creche has its moments before you're railroaded towards the resolution. The murder investigation in Act 3 feels like an investigation, for once.

Sadly, the main story does become a regurgitated mess which is delivered so heavy-handedly for how simple the intrigue is, and the OOC moments are so jarring, that it becomes somewhat difficult to... care at all? At the very least, I suppose I am grateful I got the exact ending I had in mind for my character:


...but I am afraid it's a veeeeeery specific and fringe example mostly existing because it justifies having the githyanki as a playable race, with most other endings being a lot less defined.

As for the companions overall, the main issue with them, again, is how little of them you experience outside of romances. Halsin in particular feels like he was added purely because the certain parts of the community kept begging for him to be added for all the wrong reasons. Meanwhile Minthara, who was seemingly planned as a companion from the start (based on how she'd respond to being looted in EA, and outright carrying camping supplies on her when those were introduced), instead got hit with the scissors so hard that even after the supposed "bug fixing" (uhuh) she still barely has the fraction of the wealth of content associated with her.

I can't help but be somewhat... curious:

The point isn’t being able to intimate combat on your own terms. The point is non-linear decision making. If an encounter starts a big cutscene or dialogue, very few games provided you the tools for unprompted, player driven decision making to say, “fuck it, I’m going to backstab this fool / build a box ladder and drop an owlbear druid / set up a bunch of grenades and firebolt them / pick up the boss and throw him off a ledge / whatever.” And it isn’t just encounters. Just moving around the map, you have so many tools to decide how you approach a barrier. This is very true to table top gaming. It is something games like Dragon Age games don’t even attempt and it is a big part of this game’s positive reception.