Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Disappointed in Larian

It's doubtful he's really his son and not calling him father in the Sharran tradition

No I think they are real Thorms, but not from Melodia. Probably conceived with a later mistress who was Sharran also. Chronology here is a knot that cannot be unraveled.

I guess that makes more sense, although, the wiki has him as an elf? (However, idk where they got that info from...)

Especially so. I also just remembered there's still that note in The House of Healing (Reithwin Necrology) that puts Malus Thorm's origins (aswell as a separate fight between Shar and Selune) in 986DR, 500ish years ago. Could just be an oversight or maybe it's intentional?

-

Also, if the 3 were either revived via necromancy before Ketheric's defeat (or were alive by that point, as per Gerringothe being the Toll Collector at that time), then they both managed to escape the war and have been chilling in the shadows OR revived after Ketheric did but still let them worship Shar?

And given that connection to Shar, idk why they'd be his Lieutenants (or something similar, I can't recall exactly what they were named), given that Shar would like to see Ketheric dead.
Perhaps I'm just looking too much into it or just confusing myself at this point, idk.

I think that if we had a chat about what we dislike about BG3 we would find a lot of common, but I am afraid those work as intended. There is a lot of feedback that's been given throughout Early Access, that it seems Larian wasn't interested in taking on board - I doubt the release has changed it, especially with the universal praise.

There's universal praise for Act 1, and maybe 2, but there's a lot of frustration with Act 3. There are some reddit posts that show outright rage before the epilogues were added. I would say "Act 3 is a mess" is a general consensus among people who got that far.

I see act one and act two as a symphony and act 3 as a mosh pit at a head bangers ball. Not wholly a complaint, but the pacing definitely changes.

I just don’t think he even care who or what was left over from the shadow curse. He had his objectives and went with it.

Malus is factually not his son, but has a different family connection, while there isn't anything that implies Gerringothe is his daughter that I can remember. I'm not sure who you mean with "they"?

Thisobald has 4 legs and a tail, he's a rather strange undead all around. Unlike the rest of the family, his position isn't prestigious, either. However, I have my doubts that Ketheric is the sort of man to take a mistress.

Yeah the lack of a level/quest editor was a another blow. They said they were "handing off" the game to the community and while I have issues with that in itself, the fact that they're not even releasing a full toolset makes it feel like a disingenuous characterization of what they're doing. It seems like it's really meant to be a way for console users to have access to mods.

I don't know that there needed to be a dispute over the IP. Swen has said in the past that once he's done with a game, he's done with it. It's out of his head completely and he's ready to move on to the next thing. I think the success of the game made him pause and reconsider but he really just wanted to be done with it so he could work on the next project. I understand this but the construction of the third act is mediocre. It's upsetting that they're content with leaving it like this. I think the abrupt cut with WOC was there so that the goodbye was tangibly final for them and so that it would be clear to players that they're moving on fully.

Regrettably, what you’re saying is probably true, which frankly hurts even more than there being some behind the scenes drama, because frankly it shows me that despite all the praise they’re getting, the Larian crew is immensely lazy in spite of their incredible talents. It’s super unfortunate that a game as good as this would be left in a state that frankly feels like a draft for a project before it’s final copy is put together (it’s still like the best draft for something that’s been put together in a long time). We as a community really should be giving larian more backlash for this honestly unacceptable stance on game development, but it’s inevitably drowned out by the praise for all the good parts of the game that do deserve praise.

My personal conclusion is to simply speak with my wallet in this scenario. I have no plans of buying larian’s next project until at the very least a definitive edition comes out in the future. I don’t want to be treated like a beta tester for a game when it’s advertised as the final release, and then just left in the dust because the developers realized that it’s just too much work to actually commit to crossing the finish line. Theres plenty of other rpgs out there that have much weaker writing, characters, and gameplay, but at least they don’t leave me in a place where I think “Man it’s like there’s entire chunks of the game that just straight up aren’t there that are supposed to be”.

I have to say I disagree with the characters not feeling fleshed out. The companions and their stories were the best part of the game to me and what has drawn me in since early access. I think that's why there was such an outcry for an epilogue.

Someone said that Baldur's Gate felt like it should be split into two acts and I agree. Also the fact that you have to go at least half of the final act without one of your companions if they're taken sucks. The lack of urgency to get them back within the story makes it feel pointless as well. There should be an optional questline to get them back without having to defeat Gortash or Orin first. One that's focused on getting them back in it's entirety.

I think the lack of reaction from anyone when you either save Orin's victim or they die is a good example of how lacking act 3 can be. I don't want to be overly harsh but if I'm being honest there are major parts of act 3 where it feels like they just gave up. Like when you get to the end of a college paper and half-ass the conclusion because you just need to be done with it.

I would say it's burnout and eagerness to work on something new rather than laziness. They're clearly very passionate about their work and it shows in the parts of the game that are great as you said.

But it's... I'm not sure how to word it. I think the project should be worked on until it's truly complete despite how excited they may be to start something new. They knew this with dos2 but they're content with leaving BG3 with a middling conclusion. It's not about wanting new content for the sake of it. I would never say The Witcher 3 was abandoned when it ended because the ending was beyond satisfactory. But BG3's final act isn't. So I would say it's been abandoned.

I’m definitely with you on feeling like the companions and their stories are the best things on display here. But in my opinion, some of them simply aren’t fully fleshed out to the point where it feels like Larian just intentionally didn’t try as hard because those companions weren’t the ones that had ravenous fanbases bringing attention to the game with constant discussion of romances. Astarion and Shadowheart just objectively have much more content than anybody else, and characters like Wyll and Minthara are so far behind that they feel like generic quest npc’s instead of integral members of the party. This is super unfair to the people who created the characters, and as an actor, I must say it’s incredibly unfair to the actors as well. Imagine being told that your awesome character isn’t going to be given much to do because they can’t sell copies of the game based on sex appeal. Neil Newbon’s performance as Astarion is phenomenal and deserves the praise it receives, but it really rubs me the wrong way that he’s seemingly the only actor with a spotlight on him. It’s no surprise that he was put forward and won awards for his performance when his character is the golden boy of the die-hard fans and has HOURS more dialogue than some of his costars who are equally billed as main characters.

In terms of the actual game, I don’t think there actually needs to be new areas or quests added to the game to remedy the holes in these characters stories. A little dialogue can go a long way in making things coherent and polished. All it would take is a few scenes that don’t even require you to play the game beyond choosing dialogue, but we seemingly won’t ever get it because Larian just doesn’t feel like addressing those issues instead of altering animations for kissing scenes.

Partly baselines set by expectations perhaps, but I never expected BG3 to be a narrative masterpiece. Partly, it being a Larian game. Partly because of BG2 as a game long detour from the Bhaalspawn prophecy + TOB as a hack&slash rush job trying to wrap it up quickly weren't also. This might sound surprising to some, but games aren't movies or books. They can be great even without being Citizen Kane -- or Planescape: Torment/Grim Fandango. Heck, D&D campaigns don't need to rival them either. Else both tabletop gaming as well as video gaming as interactive experiences had been dead all along. I finished BG3 before the patched in epilogue was a thing, and I was still feeling reasonably "concluded".

The biggest issue for me remains how the tadpole situation was rendered a nuisance at best. That was a wasted opportunity. BG2, when you turned into the slayer, that had a consequence. Even mechanically, such as the reputation hit. But then Gale's "hunger" was rendered as a minor nuisance at best also. Which both smells of tester feedback eventually having nerfed the potential -- something that happens all too often in big budget games, be it Bioshock or more recent in Deathloop. If mechanically there's no much consequence to anything, any such story hook is hollow. Again, games aren't books or movies.

Witcher 3 meanwhile? No dice. That never was a wholly satisfying experience to me, as the game systems are thin. My reaction to the NextGen overhaul: So when are they gonna patch in all the NextGen gameplay and quest design that doesn't boil down to brainlessly following witcher senses, all the while rolling on the floor and engaging in barebones action combat? What people are praising to heavens isn't the actual quest design here either (see New Vegas' quest flowcharts linked to earlier). It's how even minor sidequests are wrapped up in a little story and cinematics people are being used to from watching lotsa Netflix.

I bring this up because thanks to Witcher 3, I can relate to people when they're honestly UPSET when BG3 is being given praise as being the GOAT.

This is actually something that's prominent in Cyberpunk 2077 too. What with Act 2 beginning with "Oh noes, the Relic is killing you. You have a couple of weeks at best until your brain turns to jelly" and the consequences are... Nothing. Scripted scenes while doing main story missions are the only evidence of its impact.

What's worse, is people keep clamouring for MORE of this lack of consequence. Many people are wishing that despite all the endings for the game being the end of the protagonist, V's, story. They wish for deus ex machina to be written so that V can be the protagonist again in its sequel. All while not understanding how much this undermines the entire premise of choosing an ending and its varied results.


Witcher 3 has underwhelming systems (Albeit it's the best of the trilogy, which says a lot about W1 and W2...)

Though, what it does well is its narratives. Not only does the main narrative run a coherent path from early in Geralts career as a Witcher, to his eventual ending at the tail end of Witcher 3. But it also has side quests that dive into lore and deepen the world (Even if they're implemented in a linear and handholdy way).

Which is something about video games in general. Games are often being highly rated for one of two reasons: The first is from a gameplay perspective, a game like Elden Ring is GotY because it's simply fun to play, a mechanically enjoyable experience. The second is the narratives, a game like Witcher 3 is GotY because the narrative is excellent, it's an engaging story within an interesting world.

Despite video games offering the option to have its cake and eat it by essentially being far superior to books and movies (Which can only stand out based on its overall narrative alone because there is no interaction - Outside of those "Choose your own adventure" books), we generally don't see titles that actually do both aspects well. A game that is both mechanically interesting AND has excellent narrative is a unicorn.

Perhaps we need some of Ubisoft's coined "AAAA" gaming development to provide the necessary resources for games to have adequate development into both aspects of a game. Though, I'd wager the biggest thing is simply allocation of resources...

Take BG3 for example, plenty of resources were dumped into appearance. The more detailed models, the motion capture and animations, the graphics and cinematics... They could have had a more basic looking game similar to other CRPG's and invested the time and money into enhancing the narratives and actual game systems. But they didn't.

It's something that has been bothering me for a while in video games. This need to be the prettiest thing to ever be rendered on people's top of the line PC's, despite it being not only useful for a minor portion of the playerbase (Console players and most PC users are limited by hardware anyway), but it's overall irrelvant to the actual product... I can literally go pick up a great PS1 title and it's still a great game even if it looks like ass because mechanically or narratively it is competent. Meanwhile shiny modern titles that look pretty are often shallow and uninteresting. Like, I get developers doing this back in the day, because Crysis was literally noteworthy only because of how far it pushed graphical performance (To the point where it took years before PC's could even actually handle it at full specs) and publishers like to hop on bandwagons created by any singular noteworthy title... But these days, it's just like, who honestly cares? All this work just to polish a turd of a game...

I love the visual and cinematic experience BG3 offers and appreciate the creativity and work that went into it. I understand that's not important to some but there are games I can't play because I don't like the design or extremely dated graphics. There are entire games designed around the visual experience itself. People look for different things in games.

I love TW3 gameplay, combat, quest design etc. But I was talking about the state of the story and world when CDPR was finished adding major narrative content. I don't think BG3 needs a Blood and Wine sized dlc, or any dlc, to meet that standard. But I think it needs a reworked and improved final act. I don't imagine we'll be getting that since Larian handed over the rights to the game and don't seem to have any personal desire to revisit it.

People have said they'd rather Larian move on and try to improve with their next project, but that seems to be the mindset of people who don't really enjoy BG3. I have been up this game's butthole since 2020 so the thought of Larian leaving it in the dust with an undercooked final act, the act where you finally get to the city, is incredibly disappointing. And I can't really look forward to their future projects because of this.

I agree with that. BG3's cinematic nature is even kinda at odds with the systemic nature and relative freedom it tries to convey. Cinematics are "fixed", after all. Whereas genuinelly Immersive Sims Larian has admitted to being influenced by don't at all deal in cinematics except for in introductions or in between levels for reason. It's a ton of work having cover-ups for everything, so that the cinematics don't break (I did so in Early Access already by throwing a bunch of undead into a fire-trap far away before they rose -- the cinematic still showed them rising in their scripted place).

However, that was, naturally, the bet. Take a popular IP, pair it to triple-A and mass market presentation, and that shoud elevate the already successful prior game to the next audience level. Others try to do such also. With exceptions such as From Soft by changing their games from the ground up though...

Thus it's good that indie and A/AA isn't going to go away. At the same time, a game like BG3 is much more likely to make somebody check out Pathfinder, PoE et all than a Witcher. Which really isn't far removed from an Ubisoft open world action game.

Honestly... Cinematics are at odds with video games as a whole.

Like, the whole point of a video game instead of a movie, is you have interaction. So things happen while the player does things (And no, not god damn QTE's... I'm so glad that particular fad is dead and buried).

Many modern games are often playing into that, with scenes that play out without being cutscenes. With the most common thing being the "You're sat in a vehicle that's travelling to a destination and people are talking... But you can look around" event that is popular in FPS titles.

BG3 isn't ignorant to this either. For example, in the Apothecary's Basement in the Blighted Village... You have the skelebros who pop up out of the coffins if you try to open one. A scene that is not a cutscene and happens organically in gameplay (Though the actual mechanics of it are quite jank - I.e. You cannot move the coffins at all and the coffins provide protection from attacks so the skeletons are unharmed even if you dump 50 explosive barrels and a Fireball onto them also there's the disconnect where attempting to open a coffin wakes all the skeletons in the room up... But bashing the coffin only releases the skeleton inside that coffin and even then, it's not even in combat with you for a second...)

Cutscenes in video games should be used sparingly, for things where player interaction doesn't make sense. With modern designs and techniques facilitating more dynamic events that do not require control to be wrested from players in the form of cutscenes.

I guess trying to find and keep good professional writers is as much of a unicorn these days, given that if they such great writers, they'd probably be paid better in other industries and perhaps more appreciated too.

I mean even Bioware seems to have been seeing their writers as a liability. I hope that isn't still the case and isn't the mentality within AAA games because it is a lot easier to develop an engaging gameplay loop to keep people entertaining than it is to tell a story.
Even in saying that, sometimes games can forgo narratives and still end up great. I guess it's just part of the longstanding argument between whether games should be focused on mechanics and gameplay vs being a storytelling medium.


Reminds me of all the complaints about Metal Gear Solid 4's cinematics and unfortunately/annoyingly, QTE's arn't completely dead yet.

----

Forgot to respond to the prior conversation.


Well if they are Lieutenants (or similar) in his army then they're somewhat important to his army/plans but if Thisobald is his son, then it makes his backstory abit strange.

Eitherway tho, the point being is that they just feel like they're only around as set pieces, to show off how "we have combat encounters that are ended via skill checks" and thus feel like filler. Contrast with Yugir, who can be "defeated" in a similar matter but is otherwise more integrated with the narrative around Shar's Gauntlet.

@Taril: I'm much the same. Cinematics are being represented as peak storytelling. In fact, they've been around since the 1980s, just not as well executed.

They have their place, naturally.


Game writing is also inherently different to static medium writing. Which is why some of the best writers in gaming have actually been both designers and writers... think Tim Schafer, Peak Chris Avellone, maybe Ken Levine. That still seems rather a rarity. In particular when studios grew into blockbusting outlets, often times they would hire traditional writers. Even if those realize that games are different, somebody who's a designer as well as a writer usually still does better jobs. Somebody like that knows both design as well as writing inside out. And as such can fully explore both.

Torment doesn't have much in the way of interesting combat. But it marries D&D mechanics such as character classes and even death with the narrative. At times, it's even a deconstruction of D&D tropes. After all, you cannot die. And as your character has lived many a life already, he can switch classes as he sees fit. Which is the crown jewel as of game storytelling: To combine narrative and systems on a fundamental level. Looking Glass did this in the 1990s as well. Thief's "The Sword" mission has you sneaking into the strangest of mansions possible, telling it all abouts its owner simply via its design. There is no cutscene spelling it out. But by the time you do meet him, you already know that man's business... As you were allowed to figure it all out yourself. Via exploring the place. Experiencing it. And surviving it.

Last year I played Shadow Gambit, the last stealth tactics game by Mimimi. The game's writing is nothing too fancy. But they even incorporated the genre staple act of quicksaving and quickloading into the game's narrative... alongside to a twist. Stuff like this, when it works, isn't merely unique to gaming. It also hits harder than written words alone. Many hires still seem to have mainly a writer's background. To try to pull anything like that off though, expert knowledge of game design seems mandatory. You couldn't do a deconstruction of D&D tropes if you didn't know those tropes. And you wouldn't be able to know how to communicate narrative via gameplay a la Thief either. In essence: When to shut the pardon me fuck up and let the game do the talking.