Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Opinions on the main plot writing?

I have to agree with that. I enjoy the romances and the stories of the characters. I don't think that's the reason the main plot is so bad. I really do think the problem comes down to Larian not knowing how to write a compelling story for a Tav. The authors wrote stories for the characters and then tried to tie Tav in somehow.

Again, I do think Gale's ending makes sense. A corrupt Netherese Crown is countered by a corrupt Netherese Orb. Gale becomes Jesus, Mystra raises him from the dead and all's well.

Tav gets slotted into that story and it doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to become a mind flayer because the brain is really big. That's what Nether crowns do - they pump you up sooo much you need a mind flayer to counter them.


The game did a really good job of rewarding player agency **outside of the main plot** But in the main story? It's railroad.

Ironically the interview made me decide to play the game again - I was waiting for a definitive edition but it seems that's not going to arrive. And as I play the game I keep finding places where the main story falls apart - the Daisy lines are still in the conversations after the dream. "And it gave me another gift . . . " Uh, no it didn't . . .

Just finished the game on PS5, and I have played all types of games (including Pong and Zork). Played DND back in the day and all IE games. Really like all modern games like the newest Doom, Elden Ring, etc. As to the original post:

You would have to really convince me that there is a better game out there. The only one in the same league might be Witcher 3, but BG3 is more than game of the year. I am floored at how good this was. Usually after completing a long game (130+ hours) I never want to replay it. I have already started a new game on the Steam Deck. And, wow, it runs well on the Steam Deck. Often gameplay in large games is so repetitive, it takes a while to revisit, but each BG3 battle is like a chess match that reinvents the game each time. I did have a bug that destroyed a romance, but that was OK. Not why I play these things, and I have a new lease on life and can avoid mistakes in a prior life. I think this is not just the best CRPG game but the best game of all time.

I do hope they continue with the license. Certainly some DLC would be nice, but if I am dreaming they would do a new game not as BG4 but something like Spine of the World. Or if they have to leave Forgotten Realms, the how about Greyhawk? A person can dream.

..or you can address the actual topic of the thread, at all. Liking a game doesn't mean it's immune to criticism or that there is nothing that can be improved.

I think it is necessary to point out the fact, that the romance fans are drowning out a lot of actual problems. It doesn't matter on which social media platform I go for BG3 content, it is always about romance, more sex scenes, more romance options ( people even simp for that spider guy). I have no problem, if someone likes romances, but I find it more important to get the story fixed up a bit than more kisses and hugs tbh.
And pointing it out is not blaming, by all means write about the Astarion romance if you like ( I assume, that he is your favourite, based on your avatar), but I don't have to agree with the notion, that Astarion needs more romance scenes more than the plot needs a rewrite. If you think, that me pointing out, that there is a weird imbalance of topic is blaming, then that is your interpretation of my words? Do I role my eyes every time I see a 'Fix romance scene of character xyz'? Yes, I do. Do I say, you can't post those topics? No, I don't.

Yes, that is why I don't quite believe that the "emperor was planned all along". Maybe they planned him to be the leader of illithid forces, like in the final battle. But the narrator commentary regarding using the tadpoles was different in the EA.

Also, regarding the mind flayer change, when Gale does the deed, Mystra offers to restory his soul. So this is another example where I wonder whether there wasn't originally more planned to thsi illithids losing their souls story, but as with netherese crown it is limited to Gale's origin, leaving Tav in the side lane.

.[/quote]
..or you can address the actual topic of the thread, at all. Liking a game doesn't mean it's immune to criticism or that there is nothing that can be improved.[/quote]

Fair points, but I rather liked the writing. It contained key emotional impact on several characters, more than any game I can recall. It is a game after all, not a film or novel, so it must anticipate multiple iterations. Examples: I had major characters walk out on me, and it was more than “don’t approve” now gone. Also even the minor villains were very memorable.

Now is there room to improve? Certainly. I had to take a break due to some major bugs here and there. But Larian fixed them. They also added the epilogue and tweaked endings for several characters. They are listening and improving.

Was it released too soon? Maybe, but this is a business and money must be made. It was not like they had Microsoft or Sony bankrolling them. Hell, Microsoft thought this would not be successful.

I adored the writing. There were twists and turns that most games would never approach. It made you make choices. But, again, it is a game. I really enjoyed it, and for those that were let down by aspects of it, I totally respect those opinions. Of course they could improve or change parts, but they cannot take forever doing so. This is not The Winds of Winter…

If you feel that this is the best CRPG of all time, then I doubt that I could convince you otherwise...and that's great for you. My experience with Baldur's Gate 3 has been at times terrible and typically a mixed bag. This includes the writing; hence this topic that has now gathered 5 pages of fairly consistent feedback. It's valid to point out plot holes, ill-conceived story arcs or simple mistakes in the narrative, and this title is not immune.

As a brief aside, I do want to point out that most of the people posting here are doing so because they care and have invested their time, attention and - for some - even emotions into an experience that wound up falling short. It's not a great feeling. Hashing out what we think went wrong can be both valid criticism for the developer and therapeutic for the disappointed.

While I'm a huge fan of the romances in the game, I do have to agree with this to a certain extent. While I would identify as an Astarion romancer, I do think some feedback related to romance content is a bit much. There are elements of "i want my headcanon in the game" and "I don't care about other characters and the plot" to it.

At the end of the day, the studio has a finite amount of resources, even just to read the feedback.

Whenever writers talk about their process, especially in regards to criticism or earlier drafts, they are probably lying. This is because they are in a tough situation. For example, Larian faces this dilemma -- say the Emperor was always present and implemented as intended, even though he's clearly sub-par and inconsistent, or admit that their storyline underwent massive revisions and alterations. Which brings the whole edifice under attack. Like, why did they spend so much time presenting a particular story in EA? Did they change it? Was it always a red herring? Did they have massive scope creep?

That said, it's also important to go over their words with a fine tooth comb because they may not be lying but rather just being very precise with their answers. For example...


The interviewer is a dummy, basically, and doesn't understand the difference between the Guardian/Emperor, Daisy, and what was datamined. So, the question should not be 'The Emperor was going to be a totally different character?' but 'The dream visitor wasn't tied to the Emperor at all?' This allows Swen and Adam to tell the truth and say the Emperor was never a different character. Because he probably wasn't. I suspect Balduran/The Emperor was always involved in the story, but I strongly suspect he had a different role. As a double agent and, potentially, the guy who tadpoled you. This aligns broadly with Swen's comments that they cut some of his more manipulative aspects. Look at what they're not saying.

The other thing is that I know people at Larian IRL who've explicitly told me the Emperor was a late addition to the game, included specifically to encourage the player to engage with the tadpole powers Larian had crafted. Again, this is not something Larian's creative heads will go on record as stating in an interview. Really, can you imagine Swen going 'Yeah, so we invented these awesome tadpole powers and a plot that really only worked if the player used them, and we couldn't manage to craft a way for the story to work without them, so we came up with this guy who 'but thou musts' them constantly?'

Baldur's Gate 3's main plot is really not good. I won't repeat too much because a lot of people have covered it, but there are a lot of issues. It's apparent in how the antagonists barely do anything and the tadpole abruptly shifts from 'get this out of your head' to 'cool superpowers, bro.' It's apparent in how the "rules" for anything are unclear and depend on copious amounts of exposition. It's apparent in how the dramatic Elder Brain reveal can be spoiled by a book, or how Gortash's diary doesn't make sense with the opening cutscene. It's apparent in how heavily they rewrote during early access. It's apparent in what was datamined. It's apparent in how the three acts are basically disconnected from each other. It's apparent in how their 'always there from the start' Emperor abruptly backflips to join the Elder Brain for no reason. It's apparent in how some of the biggest moments can be skipped to no ill effect and how the story presents the Mountain Pass as an alternate to the Underdark. It's apparent in the pre-release and tie-in material changing.

The way I understand BG3's main plot development is that the writers proceeded in an Act 1 -> Act 2 -> Act 3 fashion, without much consideration for the overall story they were building -- that is to say, no one was paying attention to the overall arc. It was big ideas and shooting for the moon. Then, as they actually had to bring the story to a climax, they realized that they had far too many permutations to deal with, too broad a scope, and they were spooked by the negative feedback some of their core ideas had gotten (Daisy, less friendly characters, harder/stricter choices, tadpoles being a two-edged sword.) Things like Karlach hint at this where they've mentioned they had no idea what kind of character Karlach was from class to personality and it was only when the voice actress was so funny and goofy and didn't like recording her as grim and taciturn that they figured her out. And this was so late that the infernal engine thing is noticeably barebones, both in plotting and cutscene direction, and playing as Karlach does not at all account for her not being able to touch anyone or anything. And arguably how Karlach feels like a Reddit self-insert rather than someone who lives in the world.

You can also look at Gale where the game abruptly lets you see his chat with Mystra despite telling you that you won't see it, because the writers really needed you to see it for things to make sense. As far as I'm aware, it's the only time you break away from your character's perspective to see a conversation you're not privy to. When, if they were true to their idea of replayability and origin characters, it's nakedly obvious that non-Gales would have to take his word for what he and Mystra talked about. Are you really able to trust that the conversation went as he said it did?

My understanding is also that Adam Smith, the lead writer, had no credits prior to Baldur's Gate 3. That's to say, he's exactly the sort of creative who might end up with his reach exceeding his grasp. Combine that with Larian wanting to outdo what they'd done before, in a universe they had no experience with... It's easy to see how you'd end up with a truncated, shallow skeleton of a main plot. Either way, I wouldn't count on them ever being honest about it 'on the record.'

There's one other major instance (which we've discussed somewhere 'round here before) - somehow eavesdropping on a conversation between Gortash and Orin at the beginning of Act III.

But they did deliver great two and a half acts. What's irritating me is how they refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the main story and how they are defensive about the unfinished ending and an act 3 that's falling apart. It seems like as if they could do better, but they don't want to. Almost like saying, hey, we're in the silly FUN business, not in the serious ART business. As if one contradicts the other. As if they are fiercely protecting their very Larian identity.

They should be realizing that depriving the audience of a satisfying story ending ultimately causes a lot of fun to be sucked out of the game.

Now let me be silly by saying: Larian needs to step tf up and start to take their shit more serious. But maybe in that sense you're right ghost, it's something they're just not able to.

Yeah, I was thinking of that one, too. I'd say that falls more under, like, 'start of act' genre convention. But it's still very jarring because it's presented like you know who these two are beyond them being the two 'other guys' in the Ketheric confrontation.

Great post, especially some of the insight into the development -- and this quote sums up part of why the opening of Act 3 lands with a thud for me. It ended up being a story that not only wasn't engaging to me but wasn't told particularly well either.

Also, as an aside -- it strikes me as bizarre that they were pushing so hard for the player to start cramming more tadpoles into their skull when the overall narrative continuously states that tadpoles are going to be the death of us. Even the animation for unlocking Illithid powers is unambiguously sinister...

With Gortash, at least, it's possible to get some significant background information on him from Karlach and Florrick (and a little from Wyll and the Guardian). But it's also possible to miss all that. Orin is a very unknown quantity (maybe Durges get more about her in advance?), and that scene is partially intended to help flesh her out, I'm sure.

I think, if Larian not "take their shit more serious" in next game, many fans, ho who found out only after release BG3 and no to see mainstory hole, will change their position...I'm afraid that the next game will no GOTY and will most likely drown in criticism

It's outright nonsensical that one tadpole in your brain is a death sentence that will devour you from the inside out mind, body and soul... but putting more tadpoles in there doesn't rate a mention and I'm pretty sure no one ever mentions you have more than one. Act 1 sets up a pretty obvious choice: do you remove the tadpole that grants you neat powers or do you try to master its double-edged sword before it turns you into a monster?

And that's exactly the kind of choice that sounds simple when you're writing Act 1 without any game development experience, only to rapidly become unwieldy the longer the game goes on. It appears Act 1 would've had three 'paths.'

1. Keep the tadpole, risk falling under the Absolute's control (where Nere can even compel you)
2. Raphael removes it
3. Omeluum's ring nullifies it

That seems really easy! It seems like a simple binary. They end Act 1 and they have the tadpole or they don't. But then you hit Act 2 and, well, now you need to write a lot more Raphael content. And he got the tadpole he wanted from you, so, why should he even hang around? Shouldn't he do something with the tadpole? Wait, what if I want to go stop what he's doing with the tadpole instead of dealing with Ketheric? How does Act 3 go?

Omeluum's Ring -- what happens if the player removes it? Why can't the player get the ring and then make a deal with Raphael? Is the player going to feel 'cheated' by having to give up an equipment slot for a narrative reason? Can they use the ring then remove the tadpole? Is the ring total immunity or only partial?

Keeping the tadpole -- is that fun for the player to get mind-controlled? What if the player gets to the end the Elder Brain just takes them over? Is that a possibility? If not, then why not? What if the player keeps it and never uses the powers? What if they keep it and use it all the time? How much are you willing to punish the player for a decision they made thirty hours ago, even as signposted as an bad idea as it is? If the player can keep the tadpole but resist the bad effects, then what's the point of the ring and Raphael?

And so on, and so on. Eventually, it becomes much easier to just go 'Fuck it, they keep it, and they can use the powers without consequence.' Especially when the party members were also a. going to use the tadpoles themselves/make their own deals and b. seemingly die/be removed after Act 1. That's a ton of things to keep track of! Imagine trying to write a main storyline that accounted for all of that. IMO, the biggest weakness of BG3's main storyline as it is is that the party members barely feature because there's just too many possible permutations to track by them just being alive/dead.

I would have preferred it if he would tell you about his audience because this would give me a better sense of how he feels about the meeting. The way it is currently you get to watch it but you do not get his interpretation of it. It's not even an issue of trust, it robs you of introspective. Which is a shame, since I don't particularly care for the flow of the conversation they have chosen to show but I do love to listen to Gale ramble.

Though, I think the reason why they chose this route might also be because Gale would otherwise not have a cut scene that concludes his character arc. His other concluding cut scene is blowing him up, which you might not want to do, so there needed to be some other visually special thing that ends his quest. At least that would be my guess.

That's a good thought. I wonder if a similar thought played into the origin characters losing their individual Daisies (eg. Vlaakith for Lae'zel) and all getting the same Guardian. Most people don't play a game like BG3 more than once, so, I wonder how much of it was like 'give people all the content in one run, streamline it, make it obvious.'

It's a real shame though. Imagine him giving a speech about his intentions to join the pantheon inside the tabernacle in the power-hungry version or a heartfelt declaration of relief that a chance for a cure in sight and that he might not have to blow himself up in order to make things right again. That would have been something.

Another indication that Larian's writing stuff didn't really know what they were doing, and were just making things harder on themselves than they had to, is Shadowheart's artifact. There was even a Youtube video about the amount of work they had to do to account for all the different ways to get "the box" into the player's hands and/or their general awareness to ensure the plot functions. When I read that article, I was sitting there thinking, wow, there must be a really specific reason why Larian is doing all this work. Any decent editor would've looked at their over-complexity and told them to KISS it.

There's a bit of a tip in writing where if you're having big trouble with Chapter 4, then you probably made a mistake in Chapter 1 or 2. A similar idea is that if you have to drop in a lot of exposition to explain something suddenly, you haven't set it up as neatly as you could've. The mysterious artifact is one of the most obvious cases of that I can remember seeing these issues in a big name release. Like a lot of the other Act 1 components, it sounds great as an isolated idea: the grouchy elf cleric has a mysterious artifact that, gasp, is protecting the player from the big bad! Seems simple enough, right?

Well, what if Shadowheart dies? What if the player doesn't pick up the artifact? What if Shadowheart leaves the party? What if the player simply lets her keep the box and never asks about it? The video talks about all the work they had to do to make the artifact work and how it basically broke BG3's plotting. And all the while, the general idea was to take all these extra steps just to... put the box into the player's hands a few hours later, via some really complicated scripting.

The thing is, there's a way to fix this: just put the box in the player's hands earlier! When they wash up on the beach, the box is just there. Did it end up there by chance, or is there another reason? Who knows, but there's an initial mystery. The player picks it up or, if they don't, it zooms into their pack as they walk away. Weird! Then Shadowheart is like, hey, that was mine, but I guess you can keep it because it wants to go with you. Which is pretty much how the game wants it to go anyway. You've got a mistake in Chapter 4 where you need the protagonist to have the item all of a sudden, so go back to Chapter 1 and give it to them when it's natural and where the audience is expecting obvious setup.

As it is, even if you take great pains to never take the artifact from Shadowheart, never have her die, etc. the game just decides that you got the artifact some point and everyone knows about it.

Otherwise, how can you begin to structure a plot when you don't know who is holding the McGuffin, or if it's even in the group? Even Disco Elysium, which has way more reactivity, very quickly establishes: you're a detective, your partner is Kim, you are supposed to be investigating a hanged man. It's like BG3 wanted this early twist that the party member's mysterious artifact was actually an important mysterious artifact... but why?

I feel like a lot of newbie video game writers are prone to going like, wouldn't it be cool if you didn't have to recruit everyone, wouldn't it be cool if the characters can die, wouldn't it be cool if your party member had the McGuffin, without really thinking about whether that helps the actual story. Because most of the time, it doesn't! It just creates more work. Someone should've stepped in when they were pulling their hair out about getting the artifact to the player at Hour 4 or whatever and gone, hey, don't waste time on this knot, just cut through it and make it work at the earliest possible moment.