Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General On contradictory and inconsistent feedback

I also remember a "hint" that someone from production team revealed during an interview very early on, that bringing the owlbear into camp might have dire consequenses. Like, Owly eating Scratch. This was kind of confirmed by books or papers you found in the game, which warned that an olbear as pet would first eat all of your provisions and then you.
So in my first EA plays I never invited Owly to camp out of fear it would wreak havoc.
So maybe this was also a "joke" launched to test the player, or something that they changed their mind on, later in EA.

I don't know what you think happens in game development, but they don't have completely different teams doing the same work on different parts of a games story...

The same team that would be doing all the changes and bug fixes in Act 1 will be doing the changes and bug fixes in Acts 2 and 3.

Since, yes, not ALL the team work on ALL the content. Things are divided up between the specialties. I.e. Writers do the writing for dialogues/books/plot, they won't be writing up code to make systems work. The designers design and model the objects, characters and landscapes, but they aren't going to be doing things like managing the VA etc.

Thus, the teams that were working on things in Act 1, like the story/character rewrites, the system changes etc were doing so in Act 1 rather than across the entire game.


Which says much about the actual usefulness of EA and more about the extended development that Act 1 got over the other 2 (We know that Act 1 was in active development for 3 years, while Acts 2 and 3 were in active development for 3 years combined)


Then I eagerly await your proof that allows you to, with complete and total CERTAINTY, show that EA was directly responsible for those system changes and such things could not have happened with a simply having the entire game going through the same amount of development.

Because we certainly have evidence that shows that EA and extended development of Act 1 is overwhelmingly positive for that specific act. What with Act 1 in every Larian game being by far the best and most polished act in their respective games.

Meanwhile, we also have evidence that their overall games end up with later acts that are majorly lacking, often having people desire additional work in the form of Enhanced Editions to improve them. Which is indicative that there's some sort of negative impact to parts of their games outside of Act 1.


Please provide receipts for your claims.

Again, if you are able to say with CERTAINTY, these things.

If they used the same amount of development time but spent less of it on testing Act 1, that would by definition mean they spent more time on Acts 2 and 3 (Unless you're implying that Larian would use the extra time to sit around doing nothing for several years)

Keep in mind that my statement is not that EA cannot be attributed to improvement of the game as a whole, but that we can specifically only be certain about its "Overwhelmingly positive" impact on Act 1 specifically.


Again, receipts please.

You'll need to provide information regarding the exact profits that EA brought and that Larian used these profits to increase their development budget if you want to make such claims with CERTAINTY.

In regard to "Proof of great interest", how exactly does EA provide (Significantly) more proof than commonly used metrics like, number of wishlists on Steam, or discussions of forums and social media?

Also, additional funding from third parties? Larian is a self publishing studio. To whom are you referring to with funding from third parties?

My memory is fuzzy as far as "hunger" from MotB is concerned. I remember it more as a system that limited resting, rather than a systemic tracker of your choices (I know there was something, but I don't recall how it worked exactly).

And what system would it be exactly? I am asking, because lack of any system tied to using the tadpole is specifically what made me sceptical it would end up being a thing.

Yes, you wouldn't get the dream sequence and the power wthout using it, so Larian added almost forced interaction when freeing shadowheart for players to use it. You might argue they changed their design based on feedback, I would argue encouraging players to use the tadpole was always the goal and you misread their intention. To me, giving a tadpole a harsh consequence would go so much against design of BG3 as a whole. It's all about giving you as many options as possible at each given moment, and cares less about the consequences.

But whatever original intend was, more importantly to the conversation, I am doubtful that such potential changes to the tadpole system indicate in a shift based on player's reaction in EA. In my mind, dreams from EA and 1.0 serve the same purpose - and I think 1.0 are more effectve in establishing trust between Tav and the thing behind the tadpole, but unlike some I suspect that intended trajectory was always roughly the same. I just have easier time imagining Sven getting exited over getting players wacky OP abilities, than a gameover screen when using them.

If you are right, though, I would be interesting in hearing at some point what their original ideas were.

I have written a lengthy reply but I realised I am yet again engaging in a bad faith argument.

Why do you discard any of my suggestions by demanding a PROOF, while yourself providing none? All you have is a wild speculation, and yet you demand a "receipt" just because I suggest an alternative view. Only Larian can judge how much they benefit from putting acts1 in EA, and curiously they just did it for a third time. [shrug]

Since I'm not making outrageous statements?

Like, I literally stated that any assessment of the worth of EA and its impact on the game is based on speculation.

See:


You're the one making claims about having complete certainty:


Meaning you seemingly have some sort of proof that we can say for CERTAIN that EA was overwhelmingly positive for more than the specific act being worked on.

Meanwhile I have proof that other acts aren't as good the Act that had extra work on in the form of the literal game as it exists. Whereby a nigh unanimous verdict is that Act 1 is by far the best and most polished act in the game. Meaning that EA and the extended development has, with a high degree of certainty, been overwhelmingly positive for that specific act (How much of an impact each aspect - The EA, or the extra development time itself - had, is a matter of speculation. As I mentioned prior we have little in the way of comparative data to single out the benefits either aspect has). Stating it's effect beyond this act is a matter of pure speculation.

You try to bring up more general systems as evidence that EA was "Overwhelmingly positive" for the game as a whole, but such a claim would need proof. Especially when it has to go up against the vast list of problems that many threads detail about how the later 2 acts are just way less developed and polished.

Without any proof to bring about in regards to EA being positive for all parts of the game (And to what extent), thereby leaves open room for a speculative argument about whether EA was a net postive for the game as a whole. With both sides being equally possible to argue given their basis in pure speculation.

One could just as easily argue that the general systems updates that happened during EA being a direct response to EA and thus improving also the later acts and thus being a positive impact on the entire game, as one could also argue that the hyperfixation on act 1 and pandering to players whims for an extended duration ran a toll on their development budget (And overall passion) which lead to the more shallow developed later acts and thus was a negative impact on the game as a whole.

We simply cannot be certain about anything besides the system of EA and extended development being beneficial to the singular act that was worked on. As we have clear evidence that shows us this, namely Larian's three games where they've done this and the three games where the act that was being worked on in this way being superior to the other acts within their games.

Yes, and I mentioned changes made during EA that addressed players complains and benefited the entire game, which you quickly dismissed as “they would happen anyway” because they were inconvenient. It is third time Larian has done EA like that, and Sven has been saying how helpful feedback from EA was in making the game better.

Obviously, act1 benefited from being stress tested by an audience, and act 2&3 didn’t have this advantage. Similar situation happened in D:OS2. But if player data is so helpful, how would not having it at all make all acts better? If internal testing isn’t enough to test two acts on their own, how would not having access to EA data, somehow make it easier to test all three acts by internal testers only?

I also think you do not understanding how counter arguing works. You speculated, and I counter-speculated in return. I can flat out disagree with your hypothesis and present a different viewpoint, without being required to have a proof before doing so. I just saw some flaws in your logic which I aimed to challenged. I am challenging way of thinking that brought you to your conclusion, not conclusion itself, as neither of us are capable of understanding impact EA had on Baldur’s Gate3.

I think Wormerine brought up some valid examples of systemics that had an impact on the whole game, not solely Act 1.


All of those were heavily advocated for throughout the EA. I've been there, I've seen it. Those are also not the ones in question up until today, that pretty much means they are universally perceived as better alternatives to what we had before.

Regarding the nature of your argument, I agree with Wormerine that it seems to be quite pointless. Naturally, it is easier to give arguments that favour a fence sitting pov, rather than arguments that prove a concrete statement. You can't also disprove a concrete statement with an ambiguous argument or with a claim of the lack of evidence. 'We can't possibly know' is not a particularly solid foundation for growing a discussion and not a very constructive way to dismantle any possible argument.

In Motb you could either try to resist the hunger and eat as little as possible which made the hunger controllable and tick up slower, or you could use its power, but the more you did the faster the hunger increased, requiring you to feed more and more often or you died.

The most obvious sign that Larian planned for negative consequences for tadpole overuse was that Nere could mind control you when you used the tadpole X number of times.
Larian also kept marketing the tadpole as something that has negative consequences even a few days before release, way after they had switched to them being consequence free superpowers.

No, I dismissed because you have no proof that they are directly related to EA itself.

It is merely speculative that they are related to EA.


Yes, and we have clear evidence that shows that EA is at least beneficial for the specific act that gets the special treatment from EA.


This EA system is not only made up of player data. It is also an extended development. Like, we literally know this. Act 1 alone had the same amount of active development time as Acts 2 and 3 combined.

Had they not done EA and put this extended development, they might have spent a more even amount of time on each act of the game (Thus, spending more time on Acts 2 and 3, allowiing more improvements to occur)

Of course, there's also the question of just how helpful player data might be, especially depending on your opinions/viewpoints (Like, player data lead to the changes to companions. Considered by some to be a negative change)


Except you disagreed not with a hypothesis, but a statement of fact.

It is not my speculation, but an outright undeniable fact that we can be certain of only EA's benefit to the specific act that gets the special extended development treatment and player testing. Given the clear evidence of the literally 3 games that exist that show the effects of this development process and the lack of any certainty about the effects of parts of the game beyond the scope of the EA testing (I.e. We don't know if systemic changes would happen over the course of development, or if they were specific to EA and EA alone)

You disagreed with this statement of fact, thus proof is required to provide a substantial claim to the contrary. That is how statements of fact work.

Yes, disagree with my speculation (Which is merely a stance of "We don't know enough about the details of what impact everything had" - Which again, to do so would imply some sort of certainty on your part), but trying to deny a clearly factual statement without any proof is asinine.

Maybe you're not particularly clear on the statement, but it does NOT imply anything beyond what it states. It doesn't preclude the possibility of EA benefitting parts of the game outside the EA tested Act. It merely means that we can only be CERTAIN about its positive impact on the EA tested Act, because that's what we have clear evidence showing us.

Any notion beyond that, would start to be speculative arguments, something that I've actually refrained from asserting, due to the pointless nature of such things (I've merely raised points that *Could* be argued, of which there are plenty on both sides of the debate)

My personal view is one of a scientific view. I'd very much like more data to work with. Such as an aforementioned Larian title that DOESN'T use this EA system, just to see what actually happens and to garner more insight in to the benefits (Or lack thereof if the case may be) of such an EA system. That is my only stance on the matter, as I am curious as to the extent of the effects of such a system (Be they positive or negative).

Whether people have speculative debates with each other over what "Might" be the case is not my concern, but rather I care more about what is provably the case. As such, we can provably show that EA is "Overwhelmingly positive" for the specific act that is being tested, but anything else would require some clear evidence to prove it (Thus anyone claiming to have any certainties beyond this would need to provide receipts for their evidence)

They are definately EA related, since Larian actively tied the changes to the requests made in their community update posts. For example, this is a Patch 9 EA phrasing:



Have Larian not made the extensive changes to the EA build of the game, they would lose an opportunity to gather additional big data on the yet (to that point) untested implementations. So there is that point to be made here, apart from the one disproven above.

I don't see where it is proven that these changes could only have been made due to EA.

That they WERE a response to feedback doesn't mean that they REQUIRED the feedback to be made.


Which is again, simply reaffirming that we have only evidence of EA directly being a positive impact on the act that is itself tested.

Since they would not be gathering any "Big data" on implementations that are in other acts since EA only extended as far as the single Act.

They could have been made due to anything, but they were made due to the EA feedback as of stated in the developer's quote. There is no room for demagoguery here, I think. But we can always just disagree on the matter, I am fine with it.

And who is to say that act1 wouldn’t get polished without EA, and act2&3 would still end up weaker for reasons.


Do we know this? How do we know this?

Even if it was true, it still indicates nothing. As act1 (it seems, we don’t know it for certain) seemed to be done first it’s “active” development would also include building up infrastructure, technology and tools with which all of the game is build (again, assuming Larian didn’t attack the game at some point from multiple angles, overlapping the development of the areas, as it can happen). That first bit of content took most time to make, shouldn’t be surprising.

Hmmm, I wasn’t aware in Nere thing (honestly, I didn’t play around with tadpole powers much in general). On face of it, I am still not convinced it would lead to a overwhelmingly negative narrative outcome (I am not discounting such possibility though!), but it a is a shame if 1.0 doesn’t have such pushback moments. Personally, what interests me most in it is a negative feedback loop it would provide -yes, you gain powerful abilities and easy dialogue checks as you use tadpoles, but every once in a while the game tosses an extra challenge for you to compensate.

Still underlying problem which could potentially change (allowing a worm to eat your brain just sounds like a bad idea) still IMO exists in 1.0. Removing pushback to using tadpole powers have no impact on me as:
1) game is easy enough to break that I don’t need those powers
2) it just sounds like an awful idea for any character, unless that individual is into getting his brain eaten by worms.

IIRC, wasn't the concept of "Failing is Fun" an important design element in EA, ala Disco Elysium, or atleast trying to take that concept of DE's Failing fowards and implementing it here?

So if that was the case, I can kinda see what they were trying to do; Offer an interesting, varied playthrough based on your passed and failed rolls, along with different narrative routes like taking the easy way via tadpole powers or the harder way via skill checks.
Equally, for combat, if the game didn't crater in difficulty past EA, maybe you would need to dip into the powers to win, or provide more fights like the Gnoll fight.
Although for both cases, "save-reloading" exists.

As such, that concept didn't work because it was either too hard to pull off, feedback showed that most people prefered to "save-scum" instead of taking the loss or that narrative consequences that can lead to your character's death isn't satisfying for most people.


Then why design a ring that completely shut-off Illithid powers (Omeluum's ring in EA).

Also, wasn't the "Down by the River" motiff meant to revolve around a possible ending with your death and transformation while your dreaming with Daisy "Down by the river"?

As such, it does seem like the consequence free design is one that was due to player feedback.

----

Well, I guess you have Divinity: Dragon Commander as their last non-EA game thats fairly recent.

I posted this video in another thread but I think it has couple points that could contribute to the discussion we were having:



1) 11:10 - original concept for BG3 was a much larger game, which was scaled down as they got a better idea of the density of the game.

2) 28:27 - some mentions of new tools and processes required to build BG3. (also: 06:07)

3) 41:44 - on changes made to BG3 story throughout the development.

4) 43:26 - "when fans are wrong" aka. Not responding to some feedback. Sven specifically addresses playerbased desire for BG3 continuing development.

5) 47:55 - challenges of QAing a 100 plus hour long RPG like BG3.

6) 49:34 - importance of devs seeings other play their game.