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

In Mass Effect you can chose several backgrounds for Shepard which each leads to some changed text and a unique quest during the game.

Starfield gives entire questlines and flavor events based in your background like your parents being interactable NPCs, who also barge into your place at work once and annoy your co workers.
And Dragoon Age gives each race/background combination a unique prolog chapter and changed dialogue and sometimes options in the main game.
And except for Mass Effect none of those were Origin characters.

Yes, but how big is the choice you have . Origins, I think, has 3 classes and 3 races, so 9 different origins. What's the tally of the other games ?
BG3 has 12 classes (let's assume we can lump all subclasses together for their Baldur city origin ) Something like 40 subraces.( These can't be lumped. You can't give a Seldarine drow the same background as a Lolth-sworn drow, or a forest gnome same background as a deep gnome) and then 12 backgrounds.

So write 12x40x12 different questlines and city backgrounds ? A good 5700 or so...

To be fair, they already shoehorn in that your PC is a Baldurian via dialogue options (Which always felt weird to me, since Tav is so disconnected from the city. They don't indicate any connection to the place, nor do they seem familiar with the surrounding area - You ask Shadowheart where you landed after the Nautiloid crash)

Beyond that, there can be pickable options at character creation (Much like how you design a Guardian)


Of course, this is true of ALL things. From dialogue options, voice acting, backgrounds etc.

The more things that get developed, the more restrictive they become. Which some people like and others do not.

Some people like completely blank slate characters that have absolutely no ties to the world or story or game or anything so they can make whatever they want up. While others might prefer playing with a mixture of options that allow them to have essentially a tailored Origin character.

It just depends on who developers decide to cater to. In BG3's case, they catered to the blank slate crowd. While in something like Tyranny you have an entire prologue where you make decisions to shape your background (And the world itself).

Those are all good questions that Larian themselves opened the game up to. They didn't have to give your character any connection to the city but by default they have you be from Baldur's Gate unless you're a gith or a race that originates in the Underdark. I know at least one moment where NPCs recognize you as being from the city because you "have that vibe" or something along those lines. They didn't have to do this, they could have just let that detail out and kept Tav as an entirely blank slate. But they didn't, so they have to justify that choice. What we have now is a half-baked origin that gets in the way of people's headcanons for no good reason. If they didn't want to get into giving us origins, they shouldn't have taken the first step.

The shilling for Bioware "chose your own adventure" decline only confirms that Larian should go all-in on the systems rather than creating these cinematic/systemic hybrids at odds with each other. At the very least they may commit to either of those directions, now that they're working on projects simultaneously, rather than but one.

It's the pinnacle of interactive storytelling when the minute by minute interaction, e.g. the stuff you get to PLAY, actually shapes the world around you or let's that react to that, Deus Ex-style. Rather than writing purely narrative branches to pick from during a dialogue menu, as both would exist completely separate from one another: The "chose your dialogue mini-game" and the "combat / char progression mini-game". Arkane's Prey was also fairly interesting, responding to how you treated every step of the game, how you may have improvised and who may have survived all the way to the end. In turn being more of an RPG than the majority of self-proclaimed triple-A RPGs of like the past two decades. But then these guys knew their masters.

BG3 has some of that... no wonder that Prey's lead was singing praises, and if you're actually experimenting a bit, it can be amusing how the game responds. E.g. casting "Disguise self" on your char so that an NPC that'd recognize you doesn't anymore (leading to different quest resolutions). Or generally finding the numerous ways into places / in an around the environment -- magic outside of combat and killing things as said is usually completely unexplored by your average RPG. But it's a hybrid and as such doesn't fully commit to either direction, so people who don't care about any of that can be like: "Muh Bioware..."

Addtionally, cinematic "chose your own adventure" games are typically about a few important (dialogue) choices at best. There's only so much major you can cover. Which probably brings us back to the topic of disappointment with how BG3's all wrapped in the end... In neutral terms: Both cinematic as well as systemic games require ressources to make them fully shine. Arkane et all didn't invest in cinematics. Meanwhile, anything "game" as to Bioware has always been fairly light. Even the Infinity Engine was all "look, never touch".

This thread keeps going off topic. It's not about how games should be in general or how different BG3 should have been developed as a whole, or whether or not Larian and other game devs should include cinematics. I think that's a topic for another thread.

Do we need another thread for discussion of Larian's decision to stop development of BG3 beyond bug fixes? Because this one is being so clogged up by posts discussing other things entirely and while the chances of Larian going back on their decision are next to none bc they handed it off contractually, the off topic posts making the thread lack cohesion aren't helping.

Those things aren't necessarily off topic though.

Unless you want a thread that is just people going "I agree, Larian's decision is disappointing" for 1000 posts.

One of the initial points brought up in relation to the disappointment, is that in general, continued free development of a title post release is an uncommon practice. So while it's disappointing for a fan of the game itself to no longer get any additional content for the game, it shouldn't be all that surprising.

With one of the major qualms about this lack of additional content typically stems from the underwhelming Act 3, which is indicative of Larian's entire development cycle wherein they seemingly burn themselves out with their extended Act 1 EA development and then rush through the rest of the game.

Beyond that, there's not much discussion to be had really. Larian's decision is final, given the IP rights have been handed back to WotC, so it's not like pleading for them to return to the game can influence them. This end result is what it is. Anything else to discuss will be tangientially related at best, whether it's about IP rights themselves, why people are disappointed in the decision (I.e. Relating back to the state of the game) or the overall development of BG3.

Ha! Larian has indeed quite a lot of work in front of them to make BG3 "one of the best games ever released".

Snarkyness aside, it is a tricky subject. No, I don't think Larian are required to continue working on the game and remake some of its content. At the same time, AAA do tend to launch with "we will fix it later" promise. Now, again, I don't recall Larian ever even hinting for long time support post launch, but than how do you treat 1.0? The quality drop past act1 was very noticable, but it is easy to fall into "ah, they will fixed it later, like they fixed early access area". So when it doesn't happen (apparently, I didn't play the game in a while, so I can't judge it - waiting for final patch for my 2nd playthrough), should one pretend that all is hunky dory?

Well, maybe now when Larian is wrapping support down BG3 evaluations will be a bit more representative of the game.

One doesn't need to pretend. It just IS hunky dory.

Larian didn't say they'll fix it later, they didn't say they'll eventually make Acts 2 and 3 the same quality as Act 1, even with prior Larian titles they never made any later Acts equal to their respective Act 1's.

You made the assumption that they'd fix it. But there's a reason for the saying "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me". That's because banking on an assumption will often lead to disappointment.

There was never any real reason to expect later Acts to be given the same level of development and attention to detail as Act 1 and as such, it's perfectly okay in the grand scheme of things that it remains the case.

Easy there. I am just trying to bridge a gap between one poster being angry that the game won't get further support, and another claiming that BG3 is "best game ever".

I have no horse in the race - my issues with BG3 are so fundamental, that no amount of further tinkering will address those.

As ususal - I see no issue with Larian as a company, or how they handled BG3 both pre and post launch. They go beyond and above what they promise and tend to overdeliver. I just wish I liked their games more.

I would love to able to keep this thread on topic, but the only ones who can do that are mods. I'm fine with the theory of video games that keeps popping up. Larian apologists showing up to argue in a thread of worthwhile criticisms is an unfortunate side effect of being on the internet.

I think the idea that they "handed the rights back" to WoTC is an odd visualization of a very abstract legal situation. The nature of their agreement, originally or as it evolved, is not public knowledge. Two companies can alter their agreements with one another at any time without notifying anyone but whom they wish, and work on a project without it becoming public knowledge either. Projects as successful as this one rarely get shelved for good. This game is a great candidate for a reworked Definitive Edition, and consistently reiterating interest in one is an important signal for the company. I suspect Larian will return to this game in some form, considering its success and that its fanbase might not be easily moved to another product.

All that said, as I play through Act 3 again, the disconnected feel of the situation is becoming a really obvious pattern. I dont even feel like I'm in a story, just running errands. I do think that Act 3 could be much improved as an experience just by adding more reactivity among the player, companions, and emperor. More nighttime events that are not fights, maybe someone feeling conflicted about killing Gortash, or shock at the reemergence of a Bhaal cult, maybe psionic illness as you get closer to the Netherbrain. Things feel disconnected and the story needs more structure. But just adding more engagement of the characters with the events would go a long, long way.

I’m absolutely with you. My ultimate goal for starting this thread wasn’t to campaign for an immediate backtracking on Larian’s decisions or to express interest in expansions from them, since we’re obviously not going to change their minds on such a major business decision that they’ve obviously put a lot of thought into. My hope is just to continue to bring awareness to the problems still plaguing the game so that either:

a) Small problems can still be resolved in the upcoming patches they have planned if they don’t require major changes to the narrative or the world (ie. Please give us more dialogue and a functional Act 3 romance for Minthara in the future patches with Crossplay/Photomode because she desperately needs it to be on the same level of quality as the rest of the characters).

b) More major overarching issues that people have can be discussed, so that Larian knows there is an interest in more substantive changes they can make in some future definitive edition of the game. For DOS II the Definitive edition was released with the console port of the game, but for a game as successful as BG3 it would be crazy for Larian not to make some sort of “next gen” version in 3 or so years once there is a new line of consoles and more advanced pc graphics card. It’s great to look at CDPR for examples of how stuff like this is handled. Cyberpunk 2.0 and the Phantom Liberty expansion were released almost 4 years after the original game, which is a crazy long time in the world of game development. CDPR also released the huge next gen update (with a little bit of new quest content) for the Witcher 3 only last year, when the game came out in 2015.

There’s no reason we as a community shouldn’t continue to give constructive criticism or voice discontent with the developers and the game when there’s still plenty of time and plenty of reasons for them to come back in the future when their apparent burnout has worn off and they feel they have a good reason to return to Baldur’s Gate. The end of updates and post-launch support for the game is certainly a very bitter and disappointing goodbye, but it’s only goodbye for now, not forever.

I don't know if Larian had a complete and finished storybook before they started development, but from the interviews I've seen with voice actors, devs and Swen Vincke over the past years, it is clear that there were lots of important changes made during the development. The VA's didn't just follow a scenario, but they actually shaped some of their character traits. It may be so that this input is just the thing that makes the companions so intrigueing and likable, but surely this has a cost with respect to the original underlying story. Devs and graphics people had new ideas while the game was already in EA. In one interview they talked about Karlach beng entirely redone. Someone came up with this "cool idea" of an infernal heart and they thought that would be a really great change to make. Which it was ! Karlach is a great, dramatic NPC. Maybe the best of the lot. Wyll's story was completely altered , and so on..... All this improves the game in some points but must ultimately make other parts crumble.

So after all the cool changes were made, they should have gone to a new iteration and create a new storyboard incorporating the novelties. But, I can see that the scope of such an endeavour would be too big to do it "for free".

Well , it will be interesting to see if Larian keeps this same approach for its next game, which will be even bigger than BG3, or restrict changes on the way. Or do the iterative thing, which might be too costly.

BG3 did really well. If they wanted to support BG3 longer they could have. I really doubt it is lack of financial incentive that makes Larian move on, but lack of creative interest on their part. If money would be a concern, they would work on BG3 further, or a sequel. In fact, initially they were considering more content for BG3, before deciding to move forward to new things.
https://www.ign.com/articles/larian...-gate-3-dlc-expansions-or-baldurs-gate-4

Sticking with BG (be it DLC or sequel) is what revenue driven developer would do. If Larian wouldn't fulfill their vision for the game, they might have tried to remedy that. I didn't get an impression that there wasn't much that they wanted to do, and that they didn't have time/resources to do. AND BG3 did get a solid post launch support with what seems like a years worth of fixes and new epilogues and modding support.

Larian’s “follow your heart” attitude is what worries me about the possibility of this game having no future. Swen himself has said that their approach to development is both the cause for their successes and their failures. He’s explained that when Larian was first making a name for itself, they almost had to file bankruptcy and shut down because of money issues. But now we see that following their hearts is what brought BG3 so much success. Unfortunately, it seems like Larian’s development process is very much built on an approach of only looking to the future instead of the past, which heavily clashes with the way I view creative projects.

I find it difficult to believe that every single employee at Larian threw their hands up in the air and shouted with joy after being told they wouldn’t work on Baldur’s Gate anymore. Obviously, creative passion ebbs and flows during the process of working on something, and it’s completely normal for artists to set a project aside and work on something else that speaks to them more in that moment. But of course, most artists are going to eventually have the desire back to finish that set aside project. There’s absolutely some devs at Larian who saw all the praise the game received and had it further ignite their love for the game and their desire to make it even better.

It almost feels like Larian, as a private company that doesn’t have shareholders or a board of executives or anything, is forced to follow wherever the whims of Swen lead them without there being any other input. Of course Swen, for all his great qualities as a leader because of his stance on placing quality and care over profits, seems to possess some weird mindset of throwing things in the trash once they get a bit boring and singlemindedly dedicating himself to something new and shiny. And so I fear that even though down the line, there will likely be a bigger part of the audience that gets tired of the state of BG3 and wants more (giving Larian a reason to return to the game), it will never happen. The requests will just fall on deaf ears as Swen says “Why would we go back? We made the game and everybody loved it and gave it awards! Now people can look at all the cool original ideas I came up with on my own instead of playing more Dungeons and Dragons!”

I'd argue that BG3's success is built firmly on a "Follow the money" approach. Given that Larian specifically sought out the BG IP and are not big fans of the actual DnD ruleset (Which shows in the game design)

Following their hearts is more what they're doing now. Going away from the monetary decision of utilizing a big, well known, IP that will generate intrest purely from its name alone, to instead work on things that they desire to work on.

This overall lack of interest in the DnD ruleset is likely a reason why Larian is done with the IP, having to constantly fight a ruleset that you don't want will become tiresome pretty quickly. Not only does it limit creativity, but it will also be annoying to have to deal with its intricacies whenever you need to work on anything in the game...


Which is for the best. Given that 99.99% of shareholders and executives want pure money. Not a good product, but pure profit. Which would mean stuff like MTX, crappy half-baked DLC and a phoned-in sequel.

Having a leader who's even somewhat interested in the product they're working on is so far above literally every major company in terms of delivering something worth playing it's crazy.

I think that’s kind of far fetched and unfair to treat Larian as if the existence of BG3 is solely some scheme for them to rake in money using the dnd title. They wouldn’t have made the game if they didn’t WANT to make the game for a genuine reason. Theres plenty to show that the studio was thrilled to have the opportunity to work in the DnD universe and use the dnd rules to come up with interesting encounters and combat scenarios. I don’t think in any way that their burnout or lackluster treatment of the game has anything to do with it being dnd specifically. They clearly just realized they weren’t happy being constrained by the requirements of the external IP once they got far enough into the development process. That’s unfortunate for them, but I’d certainly say toughing it out and working within the constraints of the system is a much better strategy than just ditching it while it’s incomplete. This is why I understand them not wanting to make expansions or sequels, as that would require them to continue to iterate on rules and systems they feel limit their creative potential. But I absolutely don’t think it’s cool for them to use that as an excuse to address some of the remaining issues in the game that don’t have anything to do with the dnd rules whatsoever (making cutscenes and dialogue doesn’t have anything to do with game rules).

Honestly I’ve never seen anything that points towards your believe of Larian “not liking” the dnd rules, and I’ve read every interview or press release from Larian that I can find. It seems like your idea is stemming from one specific line in an interview about their cancelled dlc plans, where they said that part of the reason their hearts weren’t in it was because they had really cool ideas they wanted to bring to life that they didn’t think they could do using the dnd rules. This points towards the point I made above far more than it points to a conclusion of Larian not liking dnd.

Well, clearly they didn't make the game because they really liked DnD rules. Nor because they are fond of the overall setting (Given that the actual city of Baldur's Gate happens to be the literal worst part of the game... Maybe they just really liked Mindflayers and Githyanki and that's their main driving force for making the game?)


Gaining popularity and money is a genuine reason. Especially for a self publishing studio who specializes in a niche genre of video game.


They've outright stated that they find the ruleset restrictive.

Add to that all the homebrew they've done to bastardize the rules, making things not work as they should, adding their own mechanics to things and outright disregarding the actual rules (More so than can be handwaved by "Translating tabletop into a video game" excuses)

It's very apparent they have little regard for the ruleset, as it is for anyone remotely familiar with DnD and especially 5e.

This is my thought on the wotc situation too. To me announcing they handed over the rights serves more to make Larian's intentions clear than anything else. They can revisit it. I just don't know what, if anything, would persuade them to do so. They know there's a desire for it and I'm sure they're aware of the criticisms of act 3, but they walked away despite that.

Couldn't agree more on your thoughts about the third act. Lack of reactivity is the first thing I noticed and it's the same for everyone I know who has played the game. But it goes beyond that in terms of story and quest structure too. At this point I dread getting to the city when I replay. I'm not getting much in exchange for the drop in performance. I think feeling like you're just running errands is a pretty good way to describe it.

Well there was this quote from Sven I found awhile ago, which at the very least, suggests the BG IP was chosen just for market recognition.
And the game's release hasn't really disproven that either.