Larian Studios
In case you've missed it:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/h...finitive-dungeons-and-dragons-video-game

"The other thing that surprised me, in hindsight could’ve been predicted. We put in the evil and neutral NPC companions first, so there was a bit of backlash from people complaining that all the characters were so haughty and snarky, but it was really just those characters acting as their natural selves. I didn’t realise it would be such a thing, but in reality we just hadn’t put the good characters in yet. There’s a much wider variety, and hopefully, it’ll settle down in time, but it’s interesting the conclusions people draw when there’s only a small selection." by S. Vincke, if Techradar is to be believed.

That is a nice decisive answer concerning "the alignment" of Gale, Wyll and others. No one is truly good, for now.


Too bad the simple question is never being asked straight by journalists (or I've missed it):

"How exactly would you act on feedback provided by the players?

1) Say the nice words, but ultimately doing more of the same as before;
2) Actually considering changing some stuff many fans agree upon, but your team disagrees with (written examples of fan propositions - the boards are ripe with them)?"

Some real transparency, if it wouldn't hurt the business, would be really helpful for the spirit of this wonderful, well-learned, and interesting community.

UPD: a fresh article from IGN (Matt Purslow) is here, brought by @Rhobar121
https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-changes-player-data-feedback-larian
Wyll is the only one I would've pegged as good - barely.

It's nice to know that more personable companions will be coming in time, but I wonder if we'll have to wait for the full release.
idk, the 'evilness' or the likeability of the characters currently available was never really a huge issue for me during my playthrus altho i do know that the 'evil' storyline has been a topic of discussion on these forums - which i think stems partially from mixed messaging from larian/wotc in that there was a directive to move away from alignment but there are still alignment mechanics implemented as part of gameplay and 'evil' companion npcs.

quick side note, the article quotes that both the evil and neutral npcs have been included as part of ea so im beginning to also have concerns as to the # of npcs we may have at launch as im not much a fan of the mercs supplement mechanic as a replacement for fully realized npc companions (are we sure all dev written companions wont also be origin character options?)

"To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules."

personally, reading this interview and the quote attributed to Swen above doesnt really inspire me with much motivation to post further feedback thinking that its being considered regardless of value or feasibility at this stage of ea, but i would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

the quote below that was also cited from Swen does give me hope for the game during development and at full launch, but in particular I think it would go a long way if during their next significant update larian reiterated what exactly they intend ea to be in terms of the games development (ex general balance tweaking and class/mechanic implementation or some more 'significant' topics cited in the forums like party lock and size, combat balance, camera/party controls, act/narrative progression, overall custom character experience/immersion, inventory clutter/management, dice roll tweaks/ui, improved/interactive character sheet, camp location and rest mechanics, etc.) as i think that would help to curb or reinvigorate the communitys expectations for full launch and during the games lifetime. i may be in the minority, but i would actually prefer that the studio consider more of the topics cited in these community spaces even if it delayed the game's launch date as i think it would better serve both the success of the game and the community's enjoyment for it.

"Well, I mean obviously we’re super happy, but we didn’t expect it to be this large, so the pressure is a little higher than we originally expected. But the plan is still the same - we’re going to incrementally improve the Early Access version to give players an increasingly better game, taking into account their suggestions.

'The team has been collating everything on Reddit and the forums since the launch. We tried to be super up front and open about just what Early Access meant before we released it, so I think and hope everyone dived in knowing what to expect."

Originally Posted by nation


"To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules."

personally, reading this interview and the quote attributed to Swen above doesnt really inspire me with much motivation to post further feedback thinking that its being considered regardless of value or feasibility at this stage of ea, but i would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

the quote below that was also cited from Swen does give me hope for the game during development and at full launch, but in particular I think it would go a long way if during their next significant update larian reiterated what exactly they intend ea to be in terms of the games development (ex general balance tweaking and class/mechanic implementation or some more 'significant' topics cited in the forums like party lock and size, combat balance, camera/party controls, act/narrative progression, overall custom character experience/immersion, inventory clutter/management, dice roll tweaks/ui, improved/interactive character sheet, camp location and rest mechanics, etc.) as i think that would help to curb or reinvigorate the communitys expectations for full launch and during the games lifetime. i may be in the minority, but i would actually prefer that the studio consider more of the topics cited in these community spaces even if it delayed the game's launch date as i think it would better serve both the success of the game and the community's enjoyment for it.


I understand and mostly share that feeling. That's why I'd like transparency, even if it's painful: if Larian goes a "polite tyrant" - it's ok, I just want to know to make up my mind. If "actively changing stuff to the majority of voices" - understandable too. If something in-between - would be nice to know _what exactly is being changed_, when they would make up their mind (if it isn't made up already, as one would hope). Buyer really should know what he is buying; an ally or fellow player - which homebrew rules his DM (Larian) is using, _before_ he invests his time and other resources.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard

Originally Posted by nation


"To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules."

personally, reading this interview and the quote attributed to Swen above doesnt really inspire me with much motivation to post further feedback thinking that its being considered regardless of value or feasibility at this stage of ea, but i would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

the quote below that was also cited from Swen does give me hope for the game during development and at full launch, but in particular I think it would go a long way if during their next significant update larian reiterated what exactly they intend ea to be in terms of the games development (ex general balance tweaking and class/mechanic implementation or some more 'significant' topics cited in the forums like party lock and size, combat balance, camera/party controls, act/narrative progression, overall custom character experience/immersion, inventory clutter/management, dice roll tweaks/ui, improved/interactive character sheet, camp location and rest mechanics, etc.) as i think that would help to curb or reinvigorate the communitys expectations for full launch and during the games lifetime. i may be in the minority, but i would actually prefer that the studio consider more of the topics cited in these community spaces even if it delayed the game's launch date as i think it would better serve both the success of the game and the community's enjoyment for it.


I understand and mostly share that feeling. That's why I'd like transparency, even if it's painful: if Larian goes a "polite tyrant" - it's ok, I just want to know to make up my mind. If "actively changing stuff to the majority of voices" - understandable too. If something in-between - would be nice to know _what exactly is being changed_, when they would make up their mind (if it isn't made up already, as one would hope). Buyer really should know what he is buying; an ally or fellow player - which homebrew rules his DM (Larian) is using, _before_ he invests his time and other resources.


You will know ...

In one year :p
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Too bad the simple question is never being asked straight by journalists (or I've missed it):

"How exactly would you act on feedback provided by the players?

1) Say the nice words, but ultimately doing more of the same as before;
2) Actually considering changing some stuff many fans agree upon, but your team disagrees with (written examples of fan propositions - the boards are ripe with them)?"


That's what I'm impatient to learn as well, at this point.
From the article:
We asked Vincke how the team is managing die-hard far expectations, as well as enticing a new audience to Baldur’s Gate: "Well we’re basically trying to make the game that we’d like to play," he says. "Given that all of us are very big Baldur’s Gate fans, we think we can make a game that works for all the fans out there."

Well, I'm a die-hard, passionate fan of the original Baldur's Gate games. So I am one of the "all the fans out there." And yet Larian doesn't seem to be making a game here that works for me. Mr. Vincke, respectfully, what's up with that, sir?
Kinda sad about the implication that this is as evil as it gets. If delighting in my being a mild jerk is what's considered to be evil, those good characters are going to be an unbearable smattering of cotton candy and butterflies.
"If we can stick to the rules then we stick to the rules, but if we need to modify them to make them more fun, or if they don’t work in a video game setting, then we’ll adapt them. The video game always wins in the end."

I don't have a problem with this. Some people do, but I don't think they're being very reasonable. Most of the people who buy this game won't even know the 5e rules. And most of the DMs and D&D players I've known understand and accept the existence of house rules in a given campaign. If some things are a little different than in the books, it's not gonna ruin the game.
Hmm. That's disappointing. Sound's like they are brushing character feedback under the rug and are just going to stick with whatever. Why put characters out to test if they are going to brush it off? I guess they mostly wanted to test functionality of systems. Sound's like feedback does not matter as much as I'd have hoped. I'll see in the next couple of updates.
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.
It would be nice to get a survey. But I think @Sorcerv1tor's reddit and larian forum surveys had something like 110 each?

And they invited us to give our feedback here so . . .

Good reminder to submit via the official feedback button as well.
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Kinda sad about the implication that this is as evil as it gets. If delighting in my being a mild jerk is what's considered to be evil, those good characters are going to be an unbearable smattering of cotton candy and butterflies.


Can't disagree with you, but probably that is as far "evil" they could make it without making thoughtful "villains" which would take all the spotlight from the custom PC's story, if it's even going to be chiseled (the elven mage Solas from Da:Inquisition and like).

We'll get a relatively simple good-meaning character in ranger Minsc, but I can't see how it will correspond with the flexibility of party building where you have a backup idealistic/altruistic character for every major role in case you need some not self-centered folks in your party. If there are only 3 companions remaining, 1 of them being a ranger, for example, we are left either without cleric, wizard, or rogue role (or more than one). And stuck with whoever irks us. With the notions of Karlach going paladin, it looks even worse in that division (2 melee/probably Strength-based characters (if they still go with a canon Minsc route and current Karlach's examination showing Str-based build) could easily work together n the battlefield, yet break the party balance. Looks like an oversight to me, not a design choice (which would be trolling a certain type of players).
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.


And it's ok it is given by some, not everyone (some people have a bit more free time and desire to share). Still, it's a good base to check player's reaction, and overall the game has received quite alot of feedback compared to some other games, wouldn't you agree? If anything, I'd say based on previous words by Larian, that they were unprepared for such an influx of players first; thus, they are incapable right now at keeping up with forums.

There is an old saying in Russian - "Gorshochek, ne vari" (the pot, stop boiling), taken from a myth, which being original, still easily corresponds with Finnish Sampo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo and the like (Dagda's cauldron); the idea is "sometimes enough is enough and you need to say it aloud".

So Larian is captaining this ship of BG3, and without the botswain calls, the crowd (70k players were playing, a few hundred overall actively posting) will get rowdy or go awol at the next port. Are we just passengers or part of the effort? Can't have both ways. So, would be nice (and even right) to be treated accordingly, I'd say.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It would be nice to get a survey. But I think @Sorcerv1tor's reddit and larian forum surveys had something like 110 each?

And they invited us to give our feedback here so . . .

Good reminder to submit via the official feedback button as well.


It seems a good idea to ask for feedback via in-game tools. People will vote without looking at the neighbor's opinions.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.

There's also the fact that's more or less the only useful feedback you'll ever get.
The overwhelming majority of your future user base is never going to give you explicit and detailed feedback.

Hell, a large part of it will not even be equipped with the knowledge and experience necessary to dissect a game or judge its isolate parts individually.
For a lot of "casual audience" there's just "liking the game" or "not liking the game". They won't be able to tell you what needs to be changed about your UI, controls, mechanics or writing.

For instance KillerRabbit proposes an in-game survey, which is not a bad idea in general. But here's what's going to happen with one:
- let's say 30% of the people playing the alpha will actually stop to compile it (which is a lot, no complains here).
- Of these, let's say one tenth will have specific opinions on specific aspects
- the remaining 90%, the bulk of users, will probably follow a pattern along the line of "voting 10 for everything because they like the game" or "Voting 1 for everything because they are pretty pissed about something".

I know super-dedicated nerds can be extremely vocal (and occasionally extremely obnoxious) about aspects that most people won't even pay attention to, but just because a flaw isn't immediately apparent to the the oblivious majority of your user base it doesn't mean it doesn't affect your game in same way.
Originally Posted by Tuco

There's also the fact that's more or less the only useful feedback you'll ever get.
The overwhelming majority of your future user base is never going to give you explicit and detailed feedback.

Hell, a large part of it will not even be equipped with the knowledge and experience necessary to dissect a game or judge its isolate parts individually.
For a lot of "casual audience" there's just "liking the game" or "not liking the game". They won't be able to tell you what needs to be changed about your UI, controls, mechanics or writing.

I think this is a very important point that doesn't get stressed enough. The people who take the time to properly analyze every aspect of the game could be a very valuable resource if Larian will properly use it
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.

There's also the fact that's more or less the only useful feedback you'll ever get.
The overwhelming majority of your future user base is never going to give you explicit and detailed feedback.

Hell, a large part of it will not even be equipped with the knowledge and experience necessary to dissect a game or judge its isolate parts individually.
For a lot of "casual audience" there's just "liking the game" or "not liking the game". They won't be able to tell you what needs to be changed about your UI, controls, mechanics or writing.

For instance KillerRabbit proposes an in-game survey, which is not a bad idea in general. But here's what's going to happen with one:
- let's say 30% of the people playing the alpha will actually stop to compile it (which is a lot, no complains here).
- Of these, let's say one tenth will have specific opinions on specific aspects
- the remaining 90%, the bulk of users, will probably follow a pattern along the line of "voting 10 for everything because they like the game" or "Voting 1 for everything because they are pretty pissed about something".

I know super-dedicated nerds can be extremely vocal (and occasionally extremely obnoxious) about aspects that most people won't even pay attention to, but just because a flaw isn't immediately apparent to the the oblivious majority of your user base it doesn't mean it doesn't affect your game in same way.


I'm positively impressed with the amounts of people even on this one forum, giving detailed and thought-out feedback for everyone's benefits. It's just a gut feeling that such a big effort should get further encouragement and, importantly, honest, definitive responses when they could be allowed from those who asked for this feedback. Not a silence we are in now. It wouldn't cost them much but would go long way towards building the community; and doesn't this game exists first and foremost for people who would play it? Sorry for a bit of rant.

For your points: it's like in real life. People vote or they steer clear if they can do that. Still, a result to base your actions on (and warn of them). Aside from super-dedicated nerds, there is all type of players and people. It's only fair to say which type of player your design decisions would affect. For example, as Firesnakearies noticed in another post, Swen Vincke says he loves playing wizards. That doesn't mean they would get much love from developers... does it? hehe (no, I don't need a serious answer to that, there are far more worthy questions being asked already and hanging in the air).
To be fairly blunt.

Lae'zel is not that evil.
Shadowheart is not that evil.
Gale is likely the most evil out of all of them; if any of his story holds true - as he's touched things no sane mortal should.
Astarion is the only ACTUALLY evil party member.
Wyll is an idiot. Too much? Well ... he really is. He needs a serious overhaul. His patron is proving more interesting than him, and we've yet to meet her.

I honestly feel, if these are the evil origins, they need some serious work. With exception to 1; they are lacking.

But it is nice to know we'll be getting more companions, along with the slow update schedule; I've been wanting to see the basic classes added along with some do-gooders.
I still think it's too soon to tell what Larian would do with all the feedback we provided. I hope sometime in the near future we will get some sort of response to the feedback, but I know for a fact at least some of Larian's developers read it. My impression is still the same - they weren't expecting so much sells at this point and right now just trying to find a way to address as much criticism as possible. I think Larian should do a better job clarifying it but this is how I see things. I added a link from a response by @The Composer:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719776#Post719776
I agree that describing any of the current party members as "evil" seems like a stretch... But then again I can't really say I give a shit about that particular debate.
Just give me interesting and amusing characters and I'm fine.

I can promise no one will hear me cry like a bitch because Shadowheart was a bit sassy with an answer or Lae'Zel pouted when I helped a kid.
Originally Posted by Abits
I still think it's too soon to tell what Larian would do with all the feedback we provided. I hope sometime in the near future we will get some sort of response to the feedback, but I know for a fact at least some of Larian's developers read it. My impression is still the same - they weren't expecting so much sells at this point and right now just trying to find a way to address as much criticism as possible. I think Larian should do a better job clarifying it but this is how I see things. I added a link from a response by @The Composer:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719776#Post719776


Thank you for that. Would be nice on Larian part to sticky that answer by @The Composer above, because it is exactly what I've asked for - a civil answer showing us approximately where the ship is sailing. So, it's "Gorshochek, ne vari" for now.
Interesting interview.

I really like their take on good game first and D&D game second, I fully support it. I also like how they specifically pointed out that various changes are to spice up gameplay like in case of Fighter with Weapon Skills and more baseline bonus action variety, I assume, which probably helps their blandness the most.

I also find it interesting they are actually considering loaded dice to counter miss streak, IMO it could be a nice touch, because nobody really enjoys their example of 8 misses in the row.
Yes - at the end of the day he said a continuance of the same themes - so no real surprises there.
It’s Larian game & they will put their own spin on the balders gate brand as best they can and they can’t please everyone.
They have a lot of d&d players in their team & will be listening and making changes they believe are in the best interests of their game - and WOTC of course.

As he also mentioned appears a lot of angst & speculation from player base when we have only seen one small part of the game - he does have a point there.

It’s a journey ...
<<<enticing a new audience to Baldur’s Gate...>>
Great..just great...my least favorite quote when discussing game development. What is this, 1999???
Originally Posted by Tuco
I agree that describing any of the current party members as "evil" seems like a stretch... But then again I can't really say I give a shit about that particular debate.
Just give me interesting and amusing characters and I'm fine.

I can promise no one will hear me cry like a bitch because Shadowheart was a bit sassy with an answer or Lae'Zel pouted when I helped a kid.


For me it is more like I am tired of them constantly stepping in and telling me, that they do not like this or that, in the rare cases they comment on a quest. And even if they do compliment me it is always along the lines of "oh now finally you see the light". And the other times they are going the Telltale way of "Lae'zel will remember that." Yet nothing happens really from that "interaction". There is no consequence attached, just a constant bickering and at the very best patronizing. Even Gale just says stuff like "Don't worry, chap, things turn sour sometimes." Like what is that supposed to even mean? Further it is pretty inconsistent, like why would they even care whether I helped a child along the way? Who actually dislikes shutting down a woman like Kagha and saving a child? At the very worst, a character would shrug it off. Companion interaction is really tiresome in this game.
It is not that the characters are evil or very pragmatic, it is the writing and the system attached, that is the culprit here.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Hmm. That's disappointing. Sound's like they are brushing character feedback under the rug and are just going to stick with whatever. Why put characters out to test if they are going to brush it off? I guess they mostly wanted to test functionality of systems. Sound's like feedback does not matter as much as I'd have hoped. I'll see in the next couple of updates.
They know how their entire story is going to play out and we don't, so the writers must be banking on these characters "paying off" in Act 2 and 3.
Quote
"It's funny, we were trying to figure out how the Sword Coast should look, and one of our artists said we should go do some photogrammetry along the coast of Portugal, as he thought it’d be a good fit. But as he was doing his research, he looked at the emblems of one of the Portuguese cities and it was the same as the emblem you find in the books for Baldur’s Gate. He actually accidentally discovered where the Sword Coast was in the real world. So for the game we just scanned the real-life Sword Coast!"


I've done some research and found nothing. Do you guys have any idea of which part of Portugal is he talking about? Also which emblem?
Originally Posted by bernardthehermit
Quote
"It's funny, we were trying to figure out how the Sword Coast should look, and one of our artists said we should go do some photogrammetry along the coast of Portugal, as he thought it’d be a good fit. But as he was doing his research, he looked at the emblems of one of the Portuguese cities and it was the same as the emblem you find in the books for Baldur’s Gate. He actually accidentally discovered where the Sword Coast was in the real world. So for the game we just scanned the real-life Sword Coast!"


I've done some research and found nothing. Do you guys have any idea of which part of Portugal is he talking about? Also which emblem?


The whole coast of Portugal does look like the central Sword Coast indeed. As for the emblem: Baldur's Gate got a caravelle (ship) as it's emblem, and quite a few coastal Portuguese cities have the same or similar heraldry; for example, the ancient emblem of Vila do Conde https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/images/6/6b/Vila_do_Conde1.jpg

Or São Pedro (Figueira da Foz) https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/images/c/c2/Spedroff.gif

(Actually, it's a good thing we do not have a real-world full-size equivalent to a City of Murder in Portugal!)
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
Originally Posted by bernardthehermit
Quote
"It's funny, we were trying to figure out how the Sword Coast should look, and one of our artists said we should go do some photogrammetry along the coast of Portugal, as he thought it’d be a good fit. But as he was doing his research, he looked at the emblems of one of the Portuguese cities and it was the same as the emblem you find in the books for Baldur’s Gate. He actually accidentally discovered where the Sword Coast was in the real world. So for the game we just scanned the real-life Sword Coast!"


I've done some research and found nothing. Do you guys have any idea of which part of Portugal is he talking about? Also which emblem?


The whole coast of Portugal does look like the central Sword Coast indeed. As for the emblem: Baldur's Gate got a caravelle (ship) as it's emblem, and quite a few coastal Portuguese cities have the same or similar heraldry; for example, the ancient emblem of Vila do Conde https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/images/6/6b/Vila_do_Conde1.jpg

Or São Pedro (Figueira da Foz) https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/images/c/c2/Spedroff.gif

(Actually, it's a good thing we do not have a real-world full-size equivalent to a City of Murder in Portugal!)


Hem thanks a lot for the answer.

It might resemble a bit the emblem of San Pedro because of the ship, and the city walls on top it, but I would imagine that's a pretty standard composition in maritime city emblems.

[Linked Image]

It would be great if Larian could tell us which one is the city exactly.

Also yeah, completely agree that Portugal does not need a City of Murder. grin
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Hmm. That's disappointing. Sound's like they are brushing character feedback under the rug and are just going to stick with whatever. Why put characters out to test if they are going to brush it off? I guess they mostly wanted to test functionality of systems. Sound's like feedback does not matter as much as I'd have hoped. I'll see in the next couple of updates.

I dunno. I don't have any inside info but IMHO they wouldn't've asked for feedback if they didn't want it. I know some people think there's cynical motivations for making the EA available but they could've just Kickstarted it as they did with their previous two games...
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Hmm. That's disappointing. Sound's like they are brushing character feedback under the rug and are just going to stick with whatever. Why put characters out to test if they are going to brush it off? I guess they mostly wanted to test functionality of systems. Sound's like feedback does not matter as much as I'd have hoped. I'll see in the next couple of updates.
They know how their entire story is going to play out and we don't, so the writers must be banking on these characters "paying off" in Act 2 and 3.

To me it seems like the usual problem I see these days. Who is the game really for? Seems like it is 100% Larian hombrew. Every DM is different and not all are good. Get a definitive answer on who the audience is and the vague PR nonsense gets dispelled. Honestly they don't strike me as people who take character feedback well. Most people are already trained to think popular=right so most feedback is lost from that alone. To many ways for things to get drowned out by mobs. I was naive I guess. I think this is just a simple play test for mechanical technicality and gauging reaction so they can tweak future marketing. Kind of like how dos2 had a strong opening but after act 2 it's...different to put it nicely. That was because of PR strategy in my opinion. Maybe they hope to just win by early exposure. Wear people down to just accept there hombrew. I'll just observe like always to see where it goes.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
To me it seems like the usual problem I see these days. Who is the game really for? Seems like it is 100% Larian hombrew. Every DM is different and not all are good. Get a definitive answer on who the audience is and the vague PR nonsense gets dispelled. Honestly they don't strike me as people who take character feedback well. Most people are already trained to think popular=right so most feedback is lost from that alone. To many ways for things to get drowned out by mobs. I was naive I guess. I think this is just a simple play test for mechanical technicality and gauging reaction so they can tweak future marketing. Kind of like how dos2 had a strong opening but after act 2 it's...different to put it nicely. That was because of PR strategy in my opinion. Maybe they hope to just win by early exposure. Wear people down to just accept there hombrew. I'll just observe like always to see where it goes.
If DOS2 EA veterans are to be believed then you will be proven right when BG3 comes out in full. I just hope that Larian takes the year that they have to at least explain why our character feedback is irrelevant compared to what's in their story bible. We can only divulge so much information from Act 1 and datamining, so we will never develop enough of an understanding about the origin characters' arcs to give them anything on the level.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Interesting interview.

I really like their take on good game first and D&D game second, I fully support it. I also like how they specifically pointed out that various changes are to spice up gameplay like in case of Fighter with Weapon Skills and more baseline bonus action variety, I assume, which probably helps their blandness the most.

I also find it interesting they are actually considering loaded dice to counter miss streak, IMO it could be a nice touch, because nobody really enjoys their example of 8 misses in the row.

Completely agree with you on all this. These points were the positives for me from that interview, along with official confirmation we will get quite a number of good-oriented companions in the future (because for me several of the current companions are very solidly evil).
I'm split on the interview. Like @kanisatha I'm happy they are signaling more good characters. I also like the loaded dice issue as an option.

As I said in another thread I don't like the cognitive dissonance inducing we love D&D along with were going to keep changing the rules because they aren't fun enough. Rule changes should be options. Loaded dice is better solution than the AC lowering / HP bloat / Dipping / surface effects on cantrips.

Let us chose if we want use the homebrew rules just like BG gave us an option between core rules and easy.
i dont think its wrong to discribe the current party members as evil.
Id actually say thats how you properly play evil characters.

Eating babies is a pretty bad way to itneract with any group.
of course... so is eating your group members...
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I also like the loaded dice issue as an option.


I absolutely hope they would homebrew it in by default where let's after your 3rd attack or spell miss, you start getting increasing attack/DC modifier until you finally connect something.

They do need to make sure you can't reasonably game it by throwing some spells/attacks with deliberately lowered DC (scrolls and such) to prop up that big one. I imagine this probably won't be a big issue, because trying to do this would be unreliable plan AF, but who knows.


And absolutely that example of 8 misses, really that should not happen like ever, IMO, even at cost of them making that 8th attack/spell assured hit unless target is outright immune. At this point you need to be some absolutely hardcore D&D fanatic to enjoy something like 8 misses in the row.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I also like the loaded dice issue as an option.


I absolutely hope they would homebrew it in by default where let's after your 3rd attack or spell miss, you start getting increasing attack/DC modifier until you finally connect something.

They do need to make sure you can't reasonably game it by throwing some spells/attacks with deliberately lowered DC (scrolls and such) to prop up that big one. I imagine this probably won't be a big issue, because trying to do this would be unreliable plan AF, but who knows.


And absolutely that example of 8 misses, really that should not happen like ever, IMO, even at cost of them making that 8th attack/spell assured hit unless target is outright immune. At this point you need to be some absolutely hardcore D&D fanatic to enjoy something like 8 misses in the row.


I never missed 8 times, but when I couldn't hit Flind with 3hp for 4 times in a row that I started to get irritated.
https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-changes-player-data-feedback-larian

This one is much better. It seems like the interviewer actually knows what he's talking about here and what to ask.


Great, thank you!

- “RNG isn’t the only thing that Larian has realised needs to be adjusted. Giving players things to do at the beginning is something that we've been struggling with,” admits Vincke, referring specifically to the limited collection of skills and abilities a low-level character has access to."

I'm not sure this problem was noticeable in the players feedback, compared to others. But they are giving it a thought anyway.

- “I didn't see that one coming. In hindsight, it's cool because it means [players] care.”

Come on. Don't you doubt the desire of your players to insert their opinion, heh. Now for the serious part:

- "But Vincke notes that there is something that Larian won’t budge on: narrative choice. It’s easy to think that if the data suggests players don’t opt for certain choices, then there’s no reason to dedicate resources to them. That won’t be the case, though.

- “The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”

Nice one! I really like solid stances on design choices, early mentioned.

- "There's certainly people that have had no moral scruples.”

Now, now, that's judging. First - characters, not people; second - you asked this yourself in a meta-narrative of the game designer. But some people won't go "evil way" even when asked like that, true;-)

- "But as for the flavour that the Larian team will create themselves? It’s actually closer to the general consensus of what players apparently want than you may imagine. “All of the things that people are suggesting were already on the list of things that we had to do,” says Vincke. “So they fit our roadmap. We are, to a large extent, in sync with our audience, I think. But there are things that we hadn't thought of. So it'll be interesting to see what they are going to add to the game.”

All of the things? Hmm, some are contradicting others, you know. Could you please give some specifics here?

All in all, seems Matt Purslow did a good job, and get us some bits. Not the juiciest ones, though. Thanks!
Originally Posted by Abits

This one is much better. It seems like the interviewer actually knows what he's talking about here and what to ask.

Definitely more BG3 game-focused than the TechRadar article. I get a sense, though, that many of the folks at Larian have not played a lot of tabletop D&D, just video game adaptations of it.


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.
Originally Posted by virion


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.

I said it before. aside from (perhaps) RTwP, there is no aspect of gameplay that would be impossible to mod. that's why I'm so pro story feedback and anti gameplay feedback. I don't mind if people post it, I just think that in a game like this with this kind of mod support, these topics are kind of a waste of time and resources.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by virion


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.

I said it before. aside from (perhaps) RTwP, there is no aspect of gameplay that would be impossible to mod. that's why I'm so pro story feedback and anti gameplay feedback. I don't mind if people post it, I just think that in a game like this with this kind of mod support, these topics are kind of a waste of time and resources.


I get what you're saying, but the story feedback is even harder to agree upon inside the player base. And giving everyone everything doesn't seem realistic to me. Crazy amount of dialogs and reactions to implement and polish after.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by virion


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.

I said it before. aside from (perhaps) RTwP, there is no aspect of gameplay that would be impossible to mod. that's why I'm so pro story feedback and anti gameplay feedback. I don't mind if people post it, I just think that in a game like this with this kind of mod support, these topics are kind of a waste of time and resources.


Mods are great, but they're not an excuse for bad game mechanics. Modders shouldn't be expected to fix a game's problems. A game should stand on its own and not require mods to be enjoyable... or to fulfill marketing promises.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by virion


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.

I said it before. aside from (perhaps) RTwP, there is no aspect of gameplay that would be impossible to mod. that's why I'm so pro story feedback and anti gameplay feedback. I don't mind if people post it, I just think that in a game like this with this kind of mod support, these topics are kind of a waste of time and resources.


I get what you're saying, but the story feedback is even harder to agree upon inside the player base. And giving everyone everything doesn't seem realistic to me. Crazy amount of dialogs and reactions to implement and polish after.

True, but that is true about every kind of feedback. I don't think everyone agrees on anything here (maybe hate for Kagha but even that is doubtful).
Originally Posted by virion


“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

I think that's one of the most important part of the whole article tbh. ^^ I just hope they will make the " hot topics" moddable as easily as possible.

Yup, this is the paragraph that got my attention and was the definitive part of the whole article. At a minimum, I now FINALLY get a clear sense from Swen Vincke himself that he understands there are multiple groups of people out there who are potential fans of BG3 and not just D:OS fans and TT D&D fans, and that he wants to try and make all the groups happy and not just some preferred ones. For the first time since the game was announced, I finally feel like I am included in this game.

Any Larian folks who see this, I hope you will pass this sentiment on to Swen himself if possible. I so appreciate him finally acknowledging fans like me!! smile
Sven before : I'd love doing BG3 because I love the Baldur's Gate video games and D&D is awesome.

Sven today : D&D is not so fun, we have to custom everything^^
I for one quite optimistic after this interview. It's the first time some higher up on Larian addresses many of the issues we raised. And at least we got confirmation for mod support some time in the future
Originally Posted by Abits
I for one quite optimistic after this interview. It's the first time some higher up on Larian addresses many of the issues we raised. And at least we got confirmation for mod support some time in the future


Which issues ? The D20 ?
Originally Posted by Abits
I for one quite optimistic after this interview. It's the first time some higher up on Larian addresses many of the issues we raised. And at least we got confirmation for mod support some time in the future

Interview is nice and all; I wish they were a bit more in touch on forums (which look like they are stuck in 2005).
I wish we had more official interactions with the community and responding the feedback, hinting at what's to come next...
We had some of that, I just hope we won't be seeing less and less 'Community updates' as time goes.
A roadmap would be really useful.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Sven before : I'd love doing BG3 because I love the Baldur's Gate video games and D&D is awesome.

Sven today : D&D is not so fun, we have to custom everything^^


I did not get this from this interview(maybe I missed the sentence where Swen talked about hating D&D?)
what he was talking about is how non-D&D players feel about RNG and how they will try to provide a mode(optional) for them
and if you do not like it, you can go full RNG just like the way it is right now
Originally Posted by Abits

True, but that is true about every kind of feedback. I don't think everyone agrees on anything here (maybe hate for Kagha but even that is doubtful).


In that case, you are right - modders can fix gameplay choices, but cannot do dialogs, social/journal reaction systems, and cinematics with voice acting, so in case of limited resources, the all-encompassing story does seem more important. Maybe this notion would be noticed.
Quote
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”


Not happy with this article at all. This is a dodge and lazy one at that.

I read this to say "if there is a difference of opinion about a game mechanic we'll use that difference of opinion as an excuse not to change -- hopefully the modders will you out". There are *always* differences of opinion and you only a need a few dedicated people to put up the illusion of a strong difference of opinion.

So far the Larian has responded to one thread -- I hate missing 8 times in a row -- but not, say, to the various loooong threads on the need for a 6 member party. Or the one issue everyone agrees upon -- party management is terrible.

Compare that to how the Solasta responded response to critiques of lighting. "We thought our homebrew was better, you told us it wasn't so we're changing course". I'd like to see more of that from Larian.

Granted, it's early days but "modders will take care of that" isn't listening. It's a way to deflect criticism.

Edit: full agreement with @uncle lester and @maximuus on this.



@Sven

- Gale and Wyl are good in my opinion (which does not mean they are perfect or need to be always good). You can have good companions currently.
Though your 4th will be more shady (Astarion is rather neutral I would say).

- Siding with the Absolute is not just evil, it is insane and stupid. As for Minthara, she is a drow who is betraying Lolth and her people (either willingly or just controlled by a tadpole). The Absolute is not a path of power, but a path of becoming a subservient fool/tool. A lot of us did it for fun, for laughs, for the early access.
My Lolth-sworn Drow destroyed Minthara and all goblins without hesitation. Whether playing good or evil, I won't side with the Absolute except on an insane playthrough for fun.
Still, yes, you can choose rather freely to side with anyone or not, which is a nice design !

Originally Posted by Abits
I for one quite optimistic after this interview. It's the first time some higher up on Larian addresses many of the issues we raised. And at least we got confirmation for mod support some time in the future


Couldn’t agree more, by reading the interviewing seems to me Larian is quite aware of the hit topics on this forum. I am very optimistic too.
Originally Posted by Human
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Sven before : I'd love doing BG3 because I love the Baldur's Gate video games and D&D is awesome.

Sven today : D&D is not so fun, we have to custom everything^^


I did not get this from this interview(maybe I missed the sentence where Swen talked about hating D&D?)
what he was talking about is how non-D&D players feel about RNG and how they will try to provide a mode(optional) for them
and if you do not like it, you can go full RNG just like the way it is right now


This was a joke, but it looks like everything they changed is because of D&D. D20 sucks, D&D has not enough things to do when you play with low level characters (there is still many spells or "actions" they could implement from D&D).

I really think they even don't try to implement D&D's rules. What about the cover mechanic that also add more tactical depths to combats ?

It looks like he could have said something like : D&D is not that fun, that's why we completely altered the mechanics. They added tons of things to improve the fact that they didn't implement enough D&D in BG3.

What about ready or dodge ? What about shove to prone ?
There's not a lot of fireworks when you use such actions but they are definitely tactical options.

That's a strange way of doing a D&D game according to me... So reading 2 times in the interview "this is because of D&D" looks a little bit unreal.

But whatever, they do what they want with their game.
I'm way less a fan of D&D than a I'm a fan of BG... So I guess my only concern should be the "RTWP" (if I trust what I read).
Originally Posted by Baraz
(Astarion is rather neutral I would say).




Astarion is so evil smile More I explore his dialogues the less hope I have for saving his soul. The Myrina ending clinched it for me -- he thought the returning her husband in the form of a zombie was hilarious.

Pretty basic emotional reaction -- he finds the pain of others humorous. Maaybe there is a redemption path but it sure looks like he's planning to become a stronger and eviler version of his master.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
[quote]...
So far the Larian has responded to one thread -- I hate missing 8 times in a row -- but not, say, to the various loooong threads on the need for a 6 member party. Or the one issue everyone agrees upon -- party management is terrible.

Compare that to how the Solasta responded response to critiques of lighting. "We thought our homebrew was better, you told us it wasn't so we're changing course". I'd like to see more of that from Larian.
...


Maybe there are fewer PR managers or what have you, in Solasta team to influence such decisive responses. I'm not sure it's the root of the devil, but there is such a possibility. I'd like to believe Larian's stance on responses to us can change, still.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Quote
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”


Not happy with this article at all. This is a dodge and lazy one at that.

I read this to say "if there is a difference of opinion about a game mechanic we'll use that difference of opinion as an excuse not to change -- hopefully the modders will you out". There are *always* differences of opinion and you only a need a few dedicated people to put up the illusion of a strong difference of opinion.


This is the part that makes me concerned as well... I was hoping I'm just reading it as a pessimist, but apparently I'm not alone in having this impression.

Most of all I just fear this means no effort will be made to address "this does not feel like BG" complaint. Sure, people can't agree what is it that makes BG BG, but what they generally do agree on is that the game does not feel like BG. And it's not just the very complainy people like yours truly. It's something mentioned in many reviews that are otherwise very positive. So Larian not addressing this at all... that would be the final nail to BG3-as-a-BG-game's coffin.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Baraz
(Astarion is rather neutral I would say).




Astarion is so evil smile More I explore his dialogues the less hope I have for saving his soul. The Myrina ending clinched it for me -- he thought the returning her husband in the form of a zombie was hilarious.

Pretty basic emotional reaction -- he finds the pain of others humorous. Maaybe there is a redemption path but it sure looks like he's planning to become a stronger and eviler version of his master.

Yeah, I think you are right all in all, but the nuance in my mind it that he does not seem like actively evil or actively seeking to cause harm. Still, you are right that his lack of empathy = evil alignment. He is the kind of evil person you can deal with, get on your side, and make useful. Like a criminal that can be cool with his friends and allies.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Quote
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”


Not happy with this article at all. This is a dodge and lazy one at that.

I read this to say "if there is a difference of opinion about a game mechanic we'll use that difference of opinion as an excuse not to change -- hopefully the modders will you out". There are *always* differences of opinion and you only a need a few dedicated people to put up the illusion of a strong difference of opinion.

So far the Larian has responded to one thread -- I hate missing 8 times in a row -- but not, say, to the various loooong threads on the need for a 6 member party. Or the one issue everyone agrees upon -- party management is terrible.

Compare that to how the Solasta responded response to critiques of lighting. "We thought our homebrew was better, you told us it wasn't so we're changing course". I'd like to see more of that from Larian.

Granted, it's early days but "modders will take care of that" isn't listening. It's a way to deflect criticism.

Edit: full agreement with @uncle lester and @maximuus on this.

Technically, I agree with you guys on this. However, because for me I was already expecting to write this game off, the possibility of mods saving the game for me is a form of hope, something for me to cling to.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Human
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Sven before : I'd love doing BG3 because I love the Baldur's Gate video games and D&D is awesome.

Sven today : D&D is not so fun, we have to custom everything^^


I did not get this from this interview(maybe I missed the sentence where Swen talked about hating D&D?)
what he was talking about is how non-D&D players feel about RNG and how they will try to provide a mode(optional) for them
and if you do not like it, you can go full RNG just like the way it is right now


This was a joke, but it looks like everything they changed is because of D&D. D20 sucks, D&D has not enough things to do when you play with low level characters (there is still many spells or "actions" they could implement from D&D).

I really think they even don't try to implement D&D's rules. What about the cover mechanic that also add more tactical depths to combats ?

It looks like he could have said something like : D&D is not that fun, that's why we completely altered the mechanics. They added tons of things to improve the fact that they didn't implement enough D&D in BG3.

That's a strange way of doing a D&D game according to me... So reading 2 times in the interview "this is because of D&D" looks a little bit unreal.

But whatever, they do what they want with their game.
I'm way less a fan of D&D than a I'm a fan of BG... So I guess my only concern should be the "RTWP" (if I trust what I read).


Actually if you are mostly fan of BG, not D&D, and still you notice D&D critique by the team (Sven) as the main reason mentioned for homebrew changes, it says exactly what you've said first in this thread. Not a pleasant thought, in a perspective.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm way less a fan of D&D than a I'm a fan of BG... So I guess my only concern should be the "RTWP" (if I trust what I read).


Yeah, that was quite... idk. "Oh them silly BG fans, they just want RTwP! How quaint." I suppose saying "BG fans who would like BG3 to feel like BG" would be a faux pas in the context of the interview.

Eh, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Quote
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”


Not happy with this article at all. This is a dodge and lazy one at that.

I read this to say "if there is a difference of opinion about a game mechanic we'll use that difference of opinion as an excuse not to change -- hopefully the modders will you out". There are *always* differences of opinion and you only a need a few dedicated people to put up the illusion of a strong difference of opinion.


This is the part that makes me concerned as well... I was hoping I'm just reading it as a pessimist, but apparently I'm not alone in having this impression.

Most of all I just fear this means no effort will be made to address "this does not feel like BG" complaint. Sure, people can't agree what is it that makes BG BG, but what they generally do agree on is that the game does not feel like BG. And it's not just the very complainy people like yours truly. It's something mentioned in many reviews that are otherwise very positive. So Larian not addressing this at all... that would be the final nail to BG3-as-a-BG-game's coffin.


That is the problem. We should find words we agree upon concerning "it's not a BG". And it should not be, and sound like "the grass was greener".
And it may be harder to find the words to encompass all that, than finding a solution by Larian.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Quote
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”


Not happy with this article at all. This is a dodge and lazy one at that.

I read this to say "if there is a difference of opinion about a game mechanic we'll use that difference of opinion as an excuse not to change -- hopefully the modders will you out". There are *always* differences of opinion and you only a need a few dedicated people to put up the illusion of a strong difference of opinion.


This is the part that makes me concerned as well... I was hoping I'm just reading it as a pessimist, but apparently I'm not alone in having this impression.

Most of all I just fear this means no effort will be made to address "this does not feel like BG" complaint. Sure, people can't agree what is it that makes BG BG, but what they generally do agree on is that the game does not feel like BG. And it's not just the very complainy people like yours truly. It's something mentioned in many reviews that are otherwise very positive. So Larian not addressing this at all... that would be the final nail to BG3-as-a-BG-game's coffin.


That is the problem. We should find words we agree upon concerning "it's not a BG". And it should not be, and sound like "the grass was greener".
And it may be harder to find the words to encompass all that, than finding a solution by Larian.


"It's not enough BG" is not the question.
The question is "how could this game looks more like BG ?".

There are many things that could suit everyone and "easy" lead to a better "BG feeling".

First of all : more D&D and less fireworks, to summarize.

I guess everyone here agree about the TB.
That's totally not a part of the point... Even if Swen "read and matter about feedback".
@Maximuuus I may be wrong, but I saw opinions here saying "I love fireworks as of now, don't touch them".

I know the poll results are easy to trick with the fresh forum accounts, but maybe there is a way to get those opinions and numbers together in a semblance of a real picture.
More vague stuff and assumptions that everyone is on the same page. It's all air to me. I need to see progression of results. I loath "mods will fix it mentality", but I think I like loaded dice. So kind of an overall slight loss for me. Nothing concrete till next update then.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Maybe there are fewer PR managers or what have you, in Solasta team to influence such decisive responses. I'm not sure it's the root of the devil, but there is such a possibility. I'd like to believe Larian's stance on responses to us can change, still.


I hope so too. But "leave it to the moders" is an excuse not to change. I think we need to be clear in our communications -- "mods will do it" means you aren't listening and that needs to chance. This needs to be repeated often and by many people.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That is the problem. We should find words we agree upon concerning "it's not a BG". And it should not be, and sound like "the grass was greener".
And it may be harder to find the words to encompass all that, than finding a solution by Larian.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
"It's not enough BG" is not the question.
The question is "how could this game looks more like BG ?".


By all means, I agree we should actively try to find the elusive "BG-ness" and good solutions to the problem. There've been several discussion on the subject and imo a lot of good points and suggestions have been made. We should continue this effort.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

I hope so too. But "leave it to the moders" is an excuse not to change. I think we need to be clear in our communications -- "mods will do it" means you aren't listening and that needs to chance. This needs to be repeated often and by many people.

I am sorry, but pray tell me - who exactly you think they should listen to?

You seem to be thinking BG3 playerbase is some hivemind here.

In the end they are right to go on with their vision and let mods do the rest - you can be sure there will be a shitton of quality mods that will tune the game exactly to your liking - whether it's RAW 5e or full course D:OS3 surface galore + more deterministic combat.
The funny thing is that some people think that if Larian doesn't design the game the way they want it means Larian is ignoring opinions.
I'm sure that larian creates the game so that the greatest number of players will like it (everyone won't be satisfied anyway)
It would be good for some people to realize that perhaps most players don't share their opinion.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

I hope so too. But "leave it to the moders" is an excuse not to change. I think we need to be clear in our communications -- "mods will do it" means you aren't listening and that needs to chance. This needs to be repeated often and by many people.

I am sorry, but pray tell me - who exactly you think they should listen to?

You seem to be thinking BG3 playerbase is some hivemind here.

In the end they are right to go on with their vision and let mods do the rest - you can be sure there will be a shitton of quality mods that will tune the game exactly to your liking - whether it's RAW 5e or full course D:OS3 surface galore + more deterministic combat.


Hmm? Pretty sure I gave some concrete examples above. ^ Or did you want to ignore that to better make your point? wink

This isn't criticism of the mods (who are real people and not drones reading a list of talking points) but I would like see some more threads merged and pinned.

6 person party.

Party Management is awful.

HP bloat is most disliked homebrew rule.

Give us 'Solasta" / 5th ed combat rules

Would be my choice for merged threads.

Edit: and no one. No one. No human is asking for more surfaces. Vinke has been using the tadpole and is caught in a dream.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That is the problem. We should find words we agree upon concerning "it's not a BG". And it should not be, and sound like "the grass was greener".
And it may be harder to find the words to encompass all that, than finding a solution by Larian.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
"It's not enough BG" is not the question.
The question is "how could this game looks more like BG ?".


By all means, I agree we should actively try to find the elusive "BG-ness" and good solutions to the problem. There've been several discussion on the subject and imo a lot of good points and suggestions have been made. We should continue this effort.


This is a few things we could think about.
There are not all directly related to "BG", because BG is old and follow old rules, but all these could increase the "BG-ness" of the game, and more.

• Day / Night cycle
• Scrolls not usable by everyone without any rules
• Reactions like in D&D because it totally change the experience
• Backstab" and "high ground advantages" are poorly implemented in combats
• HP Bloat / AC reduction completely altered the entire balance
• Cantrips shouldn’t always create surfaces
• Action / Bonus action rework + new actions added (dodge, ready)
• Dipping should at least need component
• Tone Down Enemy 'Special' Attack (surfaces arrows, surfaces potions, ...)
• Add dyes
• Add a portrait builder / Stylized Party Portraits
• Dice roll instead of the point buy mechanics (option to)
• Better UI, more "P&P feeling" UI.
• Use the worldmap for fast travel.
• Increased party size (it looks 5 is the compromise)
• Less useless items and containers, Less WTF items and more D&D items
• Get rid of the chain mechanics and add party formations

This is a very small part (~1/10th) of what I have gathered on the forum.
I'm sure they're working on some points.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Give us 'Solasta" / 5th ed combat rules


Us? Brainboi that you? I thought you died when Nautiloid crashed, glad to see you safe, mate.

Who's "us". You multiply or something?

Speak for yourself, there is no "us". The essence of what is being said in the interview. You and a bunch of other RAW loo... enthusiasts don't represent "us", they represent "you". But you, guys, are not the only people who care or should be catered too.
Good list @Maximuuus. I think it combines "BG-ness" and "D&D 5e-ness," which you kind of mention.

BG-ness would be more "evoking the feeling/playstyle of BG1&2"
-day/night
-add dyes
-better UI
-worldmap
-party size
-party formations

5e-ness would be "is the game using the 5e rules and/or balanced based on 5e-like rules"
-reactions? (idk how reaction/instant spells work in 2e)
-backstab/high ground (kind of. High ground advantage/disadvantage mechanics? 5e-ness. High ground at all? Both 5e and BG-ness. But Larian is obviously not going to remove the existence of high ground)
-HP bloat/AC reduction
-action/bonus action + new actions

Both
-cantrips shouldn't create surfaces
-enemy special attack/items
-less useless items and more d&d items
-scroll usage
-dipping
-dice roll ability scores(?)

At least, this is how I'd quickly sort them.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
[quote=Gaidax][quote=KillerRabbit]Give us 'Solasta" / 5th ed combat rules


Us? Brainboi that you? I thought you died when Nautiloid crashed, glad to see you safe, mate.

Who's "us". You multiply or something?

Speak for yourself, there is no "us". The essence of what is being said in the interview. You and a bunch of other RAW loo... enthusiasts don't represent "us", they represent "you". But you, guys, are not the only people who care or should be catered too.


We will now delete those threads on your request. Clearly if you don't agree with a thread it shouldn't be merged or pinned. 'Us' can only be us if you agree that there is a consensus.


By the way you are coming across as very reasonable! Keep up the good work. <thumbs up icon>
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Good list @Maximuuus. I think it combines "BG-ness" and "D&D 5e-ness," which you kind of mention.

BG-ness would be more "evoking the feeling/playstyle of BG1&2"
-day/night
-add dyes
-better UI
-worldmap
-party size
-party formations

5e-ness would be "is the game using the 5e rules and/or balanced based on 5e-like rules"
-reactions? (idk how reaction/instant spells work in 2e)
-backstab/high ground (kind of. High ground advantage/disadvantage mechanics? 5e-ness. High ground at all? Both 5e and BG-ness. But Larian is obviously not going to remove the existence of high ground)
-HP bloat/AC reduction
-action/bonus action + new actions

Both
-cantrips shouldn't create surfaces
-enemy special attack/items
-less useless items and more d&d items
-scroll usage
-dipping
-dice roll ability scores(?)

At least, this is how I'd quickly sort them.


Backstab and High ground are mainly homebrew rules (as there are actually implemented).
They are awesome, they shouldn't remove them.

But they should probably rework them a lot, except if kangaroo, backstab and king of the hill are intended to be common "tactics".. not to say automatic tactics that do not require too much thinking.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

We will now delete those threads on your request. Clearly if you don't agree with a thread it shouldn't be merged or pinned. 'Us' can only be us if you agree that there is a consensus.


By the way you are coming across as very reasonable! Keep up the good work. <thumbs up icon>


I'm plenty reasonable, I'm not blind - I can see there is a certain fanbase for RAW implementation of 5e, but I think you're taking a bit too much on yourselves there implying you represent some kind of mainstream line of thinking. In the end it is just a bunch of same guys spamming same threads to circlejerk around how you want it to be Solasta and I'm glad Larian CEO is smarter than to bait into this, because you, guys, are just one camp here and not even the mainstream one, despite desperately trying to appear more than you are.
It is a good list.

I would like to see pinned lists on each of these things.

Minor disagreements -- uou don't get to compromise starting with what you would settle for. 6 is the standard from BG1&2 the IWD series and the spiritual successors.

Also a minor disagreement with the useless items. Rooms should looked lived in. Ink pots and old bottles give a sense of ambiance. Increases my immersion. More useless items please smile
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

We will now delete those threads on your request. Clearly if you don't agree with a thread it shouldn't be merged or pinned. 'Us' can only be us if you agree that there is a consensus.


By the way you are coming across as very reasonable! Keep up the good work. <thumbs up icon>


I'm plenty reasonable, I'm not blind - I can see there is a certain fanbase for RAW implementation of 5e, but I think you're taking a bit too much on yourselves there implying you represent some kind of mainstream line of thinking. In the end it is just a bunch of same guys spamming same threads to circlejerk around how you want it to be Solasta and I'm glad Larian CEO is smarter than to bait into this, because you, guys, are just one camp here and not even the mainstream one, despite desperately trying to appear more than you are.


Well you can continue to believe that you are coming across as rational while insulting people's intelligence and using descriptors like 'circlejerk' if you like. When people start resorting to insults I think it's a clear sign they've given up on trying to persuade and have lost the argument.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

We will now delete those threads on your request. Clearly if you don't agree with a thread it shouldn't be merged or pinned. 'Us' can only be us if you agree that there is a consensus.


By the way you are coming across as very reasonable! Keep up the good work. <thumbs up icon>


I'm plenty reasonable, I'm not blind - I can see there is a certain fanbase for RAW implementation of 5e, but I think you're taking a bit too much on yourselves there implying you represent some kind of mainstream line of thinking. In the end it is just a bunch of same guys spamming same threads to circlejerk around how you want it to be Solasta and I'm glad Larian CEO is smarter than to bait into this, because you, guys, are just one camp here and not even the mainstream one, despite desperately trying to appear more than you are.


I recommend that you give up, it doesn't make sense.
Lets face it Larian are already in boucoup profit from EA sales as they used the BG name to promote DOS3. There is no way on earth that Larian are going into full pickle £$£$£ production when 99% of the assets were already cut and paste from DOS. A AAA budget because they hired Morgan Freeman and James Earl Jones as voice actors right? Narr they are probably still hungover from the EA sales.

At the end of the day all this media feedback is free promotion so they are going to feed them shit. The feedback they reference is non-existant in any forum I have read, they are making it up. I mean "the heat map" isn't feedback, that's database gathered game stats that mean FA to anyone. 400,000 people petted the dog though, yeah because the only other option was to kill it or walk off. Conclusion? More dogs. People use barrelmancy to cheese 80% of EA content. Conclusion? More barrels. People always jump over enemies and get to higher ground to win. Conclusion? More higher ground and more jumps.

The attitude of "we will not be changing (insert topic) because FU that's why" is a really bad faith argument. It's basically saying like it or lump either way we have your money chump so deal with it.

Why offer early access for feedback before informing the players the game is already set in stone? Seriously I wanna know. If it's just playdata gathering via heat maps then do what every other company does and PAY people to play it instead of bullshitting BG and D&D fans to pay for the development. DOS fans are happy except they want more barrels and cheese mechanics, whoosh>>> We will be right on it. This is exactly the reason I never buy EA or pre-order but this once I figured its been 20 years in the waiting this is going to be different. More fool me.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Lets face it Larian are already in boucoup profit from EA sales as they used the BG name to promote DOS3. There is no way on earth that Larian are going into full pickle £$£$£ production when 99% of the assets were already cut and paste from DOS. A AAA budget because they hired Morgan Freeman and James Earl Jones as voice actors right? Narr they are probably still hungover from the EA sales.

At the end of the day all this media feedback is free promotion so they are going to feed them shit. The feedback they reference is non-existant in any forum I have read, they are making it up. I mean "the heat map" isn't feedback, that's database gathered game stats that mean FA to anyone. 400,000 people petted the dog though, yeah because the only other option was to kill it or walk off. Conclusion? More dogs. People use barrelmancy to cheese 80% of EA content. Conclusion? More barrels. People always jump over enemies and get to higher ground to win. Conclusion? More higher ground and more jumps.

The attitude of "we will not be changing (insert topic) because FU that's why" is a really bad faith argument. It's basically saying like it or lump either way we have your money chump so deal with it.

Why offer early access for feedback before informing the players the game is already set in stone? Seriously I wanna know. If it's just playdata gathering via heat maps then do what every other company does and PAY people to play it instead of bullshitting BG and D&D fans to pay for the development. DOS fans are happy except they want more barrels and cheese mechanics, whoosh>>> We will be right on it. This is exactly the reason I never buy EA or pre-order but this once I figured its been 20 years in the waiting this is going to be different. More fool me.

Yeah fool you. They gave people like you plenty of warnings.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121

I recommend that you give up, it doesn't make sense.


What does not make sense? That there is a bit more to it than just this extremist RAW 5e or bust attitude? It's ok, I think some reality check is good from time to time, to remind people that what they are pushing is not necessarily the only right and true way of thinking and might not even be representative of reality on the ground where vast majority of BG3 players will be people who haven't touched tabletop in their lives or at least in last 10 years, let alone give much of damn about RAW 5e.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It is a good list.

I would like to see pinned lists on each of these things.

Minor disagreements -- uou don't get to compromise starting with what you would settle for. 6 is the standard from BG1&2 the IWD series and the spiritual successors.

Also a minor disagreement with the useless items. Rooms should looked lived in. Ink pots and old bottles give a sense of ambiance. Increases my immersion. More useless items please smile


I disagree with the party. I'd rather play with 6 companions. It's totally my number... But a larger audience mean compromise, and it looks like 5 should pleased a majority (according to polls and survey).

About useless items ? You can see them without being able to take them...
What's the point of being able to pick bones, plates, fork, knife and soooo many useless stuff in your inventory ? They can still be on that table even if you can't take them.

Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Rhobar121

I recommend that you give up, it doesn't make sense.


What does not make sense? That there is a bit more to it than just this extremist RAW 5e or bust attitude? It's ok, I think some reality check is good from time to time, to remind people that what they are pushing is not necessarily the only right and true way of thinking and might not even be representative of reality on the ground where vast majority of BG3 players will be people who haven't touched tabletop in their lives or at least in last 10 years, let alone give much of damn about RAW 5e.


It looks like you're starting to do what you criticize.
Not really sure on which side you'd categorize me, but I never touched any TT game in my life and I really think that Larian should trust D&D a little bit more.
There are not only 1 way of thinking, but there are not only 2 either.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Rhobar121

I recommend that you give up, it doesn't make sense.


What does not make sense? That there is a bit more to it than just this extremist RAW 5e or bust attitude? It's ok, I think some reality check is good from time to time, to remind people that what they are pushing is not necessarily the only right and true way of thinking and might not even be representative of reality on the ground where vast majority of BG3 players will be people who haven't touched tabletop in their lives or at least in last 10 years, let alone give much of damn about RAW 5e.


Well, I tried to do this before without success. If people don't want to understand something, you won't force them.
smile I guess I've never picked up the useless items and don't have the inventory burdens that others do. I thought the useless items did play a role in

the arcane tower quest where the useless items were really illusions.


And I like seeing that one place has glass goblets, another pewter another wood. Makes it see alive. More useless items please! (I'm being totally serious).

But I would like an official poll of the forum. @tuco makes a good point that those willing to dive into the details should be polled first.
@Maximuuus @mrfuji3

Good lists! I agree with all/most points. I'd also agree with KillerRabbit's comments on it.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
@Maximuuus @mrfuji3

Good lists! I agree with all/most points. I'd also agree with KillerRabbit's comments on it.

+1
For me useless items help with immersion. Having to decide how much time and where I should check containers and what to pick up transforms in a lot of RP (in my head).

I would like though to see the spell Detect Magic, RAW or adapted I am fine either ways. It would be a balanced way to manage fomo, while still allowing the environment to be highly interactive (ny necromancer totally wants to di around with bones and brain jars).
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
smile I guess I've never picked up the useless items and don't have the inventory burdens that others do. I thought the useless items did play a role in

the arcane tower quest where the useless items were really illusions.


And I like seeing that one place has glass goblets, another pewter another wood. Makes it see alive. More useless items please! (I'm being totally serious).

But I would like an official poll of the forum. @tuco makes a good point that those willing to dive into the details should be polled first.


I opened a thread just to discuss useless items. I agree with you that more opinions about it would actually be great: https://forums.larian.com//ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=732241&#Post732241
I mean, we all kind of figured the evil and neutral companions were in the game, but the response didn't exactly inspire confidence in me.

It almost seemed like 1.) The excuse for their dialogue and reaction to the PC was because of their alignment, which is asinine. You can still have a great sense of comraderie (sp) and be bros with a bad guy. Look at a gang, they're basically family, yet they do terrible things.

2.) There's probably just those 3 companions we know of coming, which, IMO isn't enough. Espefially with the ones we have now. I'd hope for another 2 neutral, 1 evil and 1 good after these 3 come in.
Originally Posted by Blade238
I mean, we all kind of figured the evil and neutral companions were in the game, but the response didn't exactly inspire confidence in me.

It almost seemed like 1.) The excuse for their dialogue and reaction to the PC was because of their alignment, which is asinine. You can still have a great sense of comraderie (sp) and be bros with a bad guy. Look at a gang, they're basically family, yet they do terrible things.

2.) There's probably just those 3 companions we know of coming, which, IMO isn't enough. Espefially with the ones we have now. I'd hope for another 2 neutral, 1 evil and 1 good after these 3 come in.

Call me overly optimistic if you want, but I still think the full release will contain 12 (or at the very least close to) companions - one for each of the PHB classes.
Originally Posted by Bukke
Call me overly optimistic if you want, but I still think the full release will contain 12 (or at the very least close to) companions - one for each of the PHB classes.


12 used to be my guess, but didn't Kevin (Larian writer) say something like "8 and maaaaaybe more at some point, but no promises"?
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Bukke
Call me overly optimistic if you want, but I still think the full release will contain 12 (or at the very least close to) companions - one for each of the PHB classes.


12 used to be my guess, but didn't Kevin (Larian writer) say something like "8 and maaaaaybe more at some point, but no promises"?

No idea, I must have missed that interview or blog.
After doing some googling it's apparently from a Twitch stream from one of the writers. The stream itself seems to have been lost since Twitch didn't save it, but for those interested there's a summary on the various highlights which can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/jd1qsq/highlights_from_kevin_vanords_stream/

The quote about companions is
Quote
*They plan to have eight companions, possibly more, and potentially including companions that won't be origin characters

*There will be more companions than DoS2 but possibly less than BG2. Part of the "less than BG2" bit is because they want all the companions to have fleshed out stories
Honestly, I'm more worried about the story and companions being left to modding than the combat rules. Because combat rules CAN be modded without anyone being able to notice whether Larian made the changes or someone else. The story and NPCs, however, all make use of voice overs and cinematics and modding those will have an extremely jarring effect.
Just yet another reason why I'm not too pleased with full voice overs slowly becoming the industry standard. Or at least it seems to be what Larian aims for in all of their games.
Once a string of dialogue has been recorded in the studio it's much less likely to be edited or outright rewritten.
Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
Honestly, I'm more worried about the story and companions being left to modding than the combat rules. Because combat rules CAN be modded without anyone being able to notice whether Larian made the changes or someone else. The story and NPCs, however, all make use of voice overs and cinematics and modding those will have an extremely jarring effect.
Surely Larian does not expect modders to fix their story in post.
Originally Posted by Bukke
Just yet another reason why I'm not too pleased with full voice overs slowly becoming the industry standard. Or at least it seems to be what Larian aims for in all of their games.
Once a string of dialogue has been recorded in the studio it's much less likely to be edited or outright rewritten.
Paricularly because of this. The quality would never be the same.

Originally Posted by Bukke
Just yet another reason why I'm not too pleased with full voice overs slowly becoming the industry standard. Or at least it seems to be what Larian aims for in all of their games.
Once a string of dialogue has been recorded in the studio it's much less likely to be edited or outright rewritten.


I think until AI voice acting becomes standard it's going to be the same story of "one devs grows big, develops game with big budget and mass market appeal in mind, old fans grumble, an indie dev develops an old-style game with lots of unvoiced dialogue, the game is acclaimed for its writing, the indie dev grows big...". Rinse and repeat.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Bukke
Just yet another reason why I'm not too pleased with full voice overs slowly becoming the industry standard. Or at least it seems to be what Larian aims for in all of their games.
Once a string of dialogue has been recorded in the studio it's much less likely to be edited or outright rewritten.


I think until AI voice acting becomes standard it's going to be the same story of "one devs grows big, develops game with big budget and mass market appeal in mind, old fans grumble, an indie dev develops an old-style game with lots of unvoiced dialogue, the game is acclaimed for its writing, the indie dev grows big...". Rinse and repeat.

Sadly, yes. This does seem to be the case.
Don't get me wrong, I think the current voice acting for BG3 is very good, but it still pains me to know what the unintended side effects of a game having voice acting.
Good writing/story and full voice overs are by absolutely no means mutually exclusive, but when a game is made with full voice over in mind the writing and dialogue will ALWAYS be affected one way or another.
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Bukke
Just yet another reason why I'm not too pleased with full voice overs slowly becoming the industry standard. Or at least it seems to be what Larian aims for in all of their games.
Once a string of dialogue has been recorded in the studio it's much less likely to be edited or outright rewritten.


I think until AI voice acting becomes standard it's going to be the same story of "one devs grows big, develops game with big budget and mass market appeal in mind, old fans grumble, an indie dev develops an old-style game with lots of unvoiced dialogue, the game is acclaimed for its writing, the indie dev grows big...". Rinse and repeat.

Sadly, yes. This does seem to be the case.
Don't get me wrong, I think the current voice acting for BG3 is very good, but it still pains me to know what the unintended side effects of a game having voice acting.
Good writing/story and full voice overs are by absolutely no means mutually exclusive, but when a game is made with full voice over in mind the writing and dialogue will ALWAYS be affected one way or another.


My thoughts exactly. I don't hate cinematic approach. Not at all. It's just that it's not "for free". It has a cost, and that cost is something I'd rather not trade away. I'll take more choices/better writing over huge cinematic production any time.
voice acting is standard for at least 15 years mate
based on larian's responses concerning evil/neutral companions already in game and the discussion about 12 or 8 npc companions in total im getting more concerned about what impact this may have for other aspects of the game, mainly the 4v6 party debate and the incorporation of blank merc companions. I could see larian keeping the party size at 4 (not a fan of btw) bc there is a limited roster to work with (which may be even more limited post act 1 companion/map locks - also not a fan of) and just rely on modders to up it to a party of 6. like others have posted, one npc per class i would have assumed being the bg standard, and then taking into alignment, you have a minimum of 24 possible good v evil npcs but it seems that larian prefers their origin character approach and supplemental mercenaries to round out a party of 4. While i dont dislike the merc approach (pretty sure we havent seen this in game yet) i would likely have preferred if larian chose one or the other - all origin characters that are full fleshed out but limited in number or all merc companions that have some limited dialogue but are larger in number and more variety in class, race, alignment, etc. irregardless, for both options i still think 6 party slots is more in the spirit of bg but we'll have to wait to see the direction/implementation larian chooses
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

I think until AI voice acting becomes standard it's going to be the same story of "one devs grows big, develops game with big budget and mass market appeal in mind, old fans grumble, an indie dev develops an old-style game with lots of unvoiced dialogue, the game is acclaimed for its writing, the indie dev grows big...". Rinse and repeat.

There's a new factor on top of the years-old "Make it appealing vs make it deep" that is fairly new of our times and sometimes encourages even mid-sized devs to go with full voice acting: streamers.

Streamers and youtubers these days can be a HUGE part of the popularity of a release and the thing is: they absolutely hate to read dialogues aloud when playing for their audience.
I never tried to stream anything myself, but to be honest, I can't really blame them. I would hate doing it, too.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Streamers and youtubers these days can be a HUGE part of the popularity of a release and the thing is: they absolutely hate to read dialogues aloud when playing for their audience.
I never tried to stream anything myself, but to be honest, I can't really blame them. I would hate doing it, too.


Ya, I know exactly one youtuber who has enough guts to read everything or almost everything. Others (nice ones) just scroll down so viewers can pause. Streamers are another world beings, hurry as much they can.
Personally, I can read my part but companions and NPCs should be voiced.
Originally Posted by nation
based on larian's responses concerning evil/neutral companions already in game and the discussion about 12 or 8 npc companions in total im getting more concerned about what impact this may have for other aspects of the game, mainly the 4v6 party debate and the incorporation of blank merc companions. I could see larian keeping the party size at 4 (not a fan of btw) bc there is a limited roster to work with (which may be even more limited post act 1 companion/map locks - also not a fan of) and just rely on modders to up it to a party of 6. like others have posted, one npc per class i would have assumed being the bg standard, and then taking into alignment, you have a minimum of 24 possible good v evil npcs but it seems that larian prefers their origin character approach and supplemental mercenaries to round out a party of 4. While i dont dislike the merc approach (pretty sure we havent seen this in game yet) i would likely have preferred if larian chose one or the other - all origin characters that are full fleshed out but limited in number or all merc companions that have some limited dialogue but are larger in number and more variety in class, race, alignment, etc. irregardless, for both options i still think 6 party slots is more in the spirit of bg but we'll have to wait to see the direction/implementation larian chooses


Don't forget about neutrals! That's 36. :P In seriousness, yes, 12 would be just barely enough to have some decent choice.

On the topic of mercs: I think they won't be what you think they would. From what I understand, they'll be completely customizable and without personality. Just custom characters without relation to the plot.

I think the best would be to add a dozen (or Hells, why not two) of non-origin companions that range from BG1 to BG2 companions in terms of depth. That way you'd have all the choice: want intricate, massive storylines - go with origins; fussy about companions - there'll be lots of characters with personalities to choose from; want control over stats or custom roleplaying - go with custom party or mercenaries.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

I think until AI voice acting becomes standard it's going to be the same story of "one devs grows big, develops game with big budget and mass market appeal in mind, old fans grumble, an indie dev develops an old-style game with lots of unvoiced dialogue, the game is acclaimed for its writing, the indie dev grows big...". Rinse and repeat.

There's a new factor on top of the years-old "Make it appealing vs make it deep" that is fairly new of our times and sometimes encourages even mid-sized devs to go with full voice acting: streamers.

Streamers and youtubers these days can be a HUGE part of the popularity of a release and the thing is: they absolutely hate to read dialogues aloud when playing for their audience.
I never tried to stream anything myself, but to be honest, I can't really blame them. I would hate doing it, too.


Huh, that's true. But I'm not sure how much real impact streamers have on the developers' decision-making in this regard. I don't think it's a huge factor, but I really can't say that with any certainty.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

Huh, that's true. But I'm not sure how much real impact streamers have on the developers' decision-making in this regard. I don't think it's a huge factor, but I really can't say that with any certainty.
Well, I can tell you that in his Deadfire's post mortem Josh Sawyer from Obsidian openly stated that both this and DOS 2 being fully voiced influenced their decision to voice the entire game.
Also, the fact that a lot of streamers dropped PoE 1 quickly precisely because reading dialogues aloud was tiring for them.
^To add to this, considering Larian added Discord and Twitch stream integration (letting stream viewers vote on things such as dialogue choices) then Larian is most definitely aware of what streams can do for their game.
Whether or not you like the idea of streamers, I don't think it should come as a surprise that Larian are conscious of how their design choices affect streamers playing their game.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

Huh, that's true. But I'm not sure how much real impact streamers have on the developers' decision-making in this regard. I don't think it's a huge factor, but I really can't say that with any certainty.
Well, I can tell you that in his Deadfire's post mortem Josh Sawyer from Obsidian openly stated that both this and DOS 2 being fully voiced influenced their decision to voice the entire game.
Also, the fact that a lot of streamers dropped PoE 1 quickly precisely because reading dialogues aloud was tiring for them.

Originally Posted by Bukke
^To add to this, considering Larian added Discord and Twitch stream integration (letting stream viewers vote on things such as dialogue choices) then Larian is most definitely aware of what streams can do for their game.
Whether or not you like the idea of streamers, I don't think it should come as a surprise that Larian are conscious of how their design choices affect streamers playing their game.


*sigh* I believe you, as much as I don't want to... That's really disappointing about PoE. The dev thought process, I mean.

I don't mind streaming (I think the Twitch integration is neat), but I hate the idea of it meddling with creative processes behind games. Hamstringing certain game aspects because of streamers is just... unfortunate. Then again, it's the same with multiplayer, I suppose.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

*sigh* I believe you, as much as I don't want to... That's really disappointing about PoE. The dev thought process, I mean..

I mean, it made the sequel better, so...

I've been playing RPGs for the largest part of my 42 years of life, probably since the late '80s...And frankly I'm way past the point of thinking that acting super-elitist gives me a tone and pretending decent voice acting doesn't add to the game's overall feeling.
And these days it's not even a big limiting factor in terms of options... As long as the player is reasonable and doesn't expect to have full voice over for all the seventy-two possible permutations of his main character.
In fact if your title is any good I'd say it's basically a feature that most of the times repays itself with the additional audience it brings.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

Huh, that's true. But I'm not sure how much real impact streamers have on the developers' decision-making in this regard. I don't think it's a huge factor, but I really can't say that with any certainty.
Well, I can tell you that in his Deadfire's post mortem Josh Sawyer from Obsidian openly stated that both this and DOS 2 being fully voiced influenced their decision to voice the entire game.
Also, the fact that a lot of streamers dropped PoE 1 quickly precisely because reading dialogues aloud was tiring for them.

Originally Posted by Bukke
^To add to this, considering Larian added Discord and Twitch stream integration (letting stream viewers vote on things such as dialogue choices) then Larian is most definitely aware of what streams can do for their game.
Whether or not you like the idea of streamers, I don't think it should come as a surprise that Larian are conscious of how their design choices affect streamers playing their game.


*sigh* I believe you, as much as I don't want to... That's really disappointing about PoE. The dev thought process, I mean.

I don't mind streaming (I think the Twitch integration is neat), but I hate the idea of it meddling with creative processes behind games. Hamstringing certain game aspects because of streamers is just... unfortunate. Then again, it's the same with multiplayer, I suppose.

FWIW the video is interesting if you have the time to watch it. It's always interesting to see game devs look back at what they've made and talk about the processes that led to the game becoming whatever it ended up being.

Originally Posted by Bukke




Fun side note: the main reason they went for five characters rather than six was because REAL-TIME COMBAT made it messy.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Fun side note: the main reason they went for five characters rather than six was because REAL-TIME COMBAT made it messy.


I think that makes sense for the POE 2 combat system too, because every class (even basic fighters) have an abundance of active abilities to use (compared to their D&D counterparts) and requires quite a bit of micro-management.

They did implement a pretty decent AI to help, but not everyone's into setting all that up.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

*sigh* I believe you, as much as I don't want to... That's really disappointing about PoE. The dev thought process, I mean..

I mean, it made the sequel better, so...

I've been playing RPGs for the largest part of my 42 years of life, probably since the late '80s...And frankly I'm way past the point of thinking that acting super-elitist gives me a tone and pretending decent voice acting doesn't add to the game's overall feeling.
And these days it's not even a big limiting factor in terms of options... As long as the player is reasonable and doesn't expect to have full voice over for all the seventy-two possible permutations of his main character.
In fact if your title is any good I'd say it's basically a feature that most of the times repays itself with the additional audience it brings.


Like I said above, I don't hate cinematics, I don't think voice acting (if it's good) is detrimental to games on its own. It also depends on the type of the game. Fixed protagonist, like in TW3? By all means, full voice acting. It does add a lot. But games (mostly RPGs) with custom protagonists and lots of player freedom? It would be unrealistic to say full voice acting doesn't impact writing, both in quantity and quality, there's a massive gap in work between tweaking a text file and rerecording a line (and possibly a mocapped scene). Of course, there's the question of "would the dev really expand dialogue if the resources wouldn't be used on voice acting?".

Why are you saying it's not a big limiting factor in terms of options? (Not dismissing you, genuinely asking.)

Even if we assume voice acting only impacts "flavour" of what a character says and the pool of NPC reactions is the same, it imo still changes a lot. I'm not a heavy RPer, but I'm annoyed when games only give me a handful of options of which none sound like something that could be said by my character. At the same time, I greatly enjoyed some of the "weirder"/funnier/non-obvious dialogue choices in RPGs that give your character the guise of having personality. But those require there to be a lot of dialogue options, since distinct personality means it won't fit most characters.

Originally Posted by Bukke
FWIW the video is interesting if you have the time to watch it. It's always interesting to see game devs look back at what they've made and talk about the processes that led to the game becoming whatever it ended up being.


Ah, thank you. I'll certainly watch it, though I'll save it for when I finish PoE2.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Fun side note: the main reason they went for five characters rather than six was because REAL-TIME COMBAT made it messy.


I know this is another thread but I want to underline this. The BG3 engine is better set up to use 6 party members than is PoE RtwP engine.

I hoping they will change but my suspicion at this point is that the resistance to 6 party members is based in:

* 6 exposes the weaknesses of the party control system
* 6 makes it clear that there are far few companions than BG2 had

Otherwise, I can't see a decent argument for 4 other than a desire to maintain the status quo.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Tuco

Fun side note: the main reason they went for five characters rather than six was because REAL-TIME COMBAT made it messy.


I know this is another thread but I want to underline this. The BG3 engine is better set up to use 6 party members than is PoE RtwP engine.

I hoping they will change but my suspicion at this point is that the resistance to 6 party members is based in:

* 6 exposes the weaknesses of the party control system
* 6 makes it clear that there are far few companions than BG2 had

Otherwise, I can't see a decent argument for 4 other than a desire to maintain the status quo.

I think one point you're overlooking is that Larian's two previous games also had a party size of four.
A sense of familiarity for the decision makers, developers and the demographic they deem to be their core user base also definitely plays a role.
Originally Posted by Bukke
I think one point you're overlooking is that Larian's two previous games also had a party size of four.

We aren't overlooking it at all. We simply aren't happy about it.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

I know this is another thread but I want to underline this. The BG3 engine is better set up to use 6 party members than is PoE RtwP engine.

I hoping they will change but my suspicion at this point is that the resistance to 6 party members is based in:

* 6 exposes the weaknesses of the party control system
* 6 makes it clear that there are far few companions than BG2 had

Otherwise, I can't see a decent argument for 4 other than a desire to maintain the status quo.


Swen already answered the question related to 6-men party (I think one or two months before EA release?)
it was one of the interviews with Dropped Frames
I do not exactly remember the answer but it was about the design and how they can handle a 4-men party better than 6(I think)
I am sure you can find it on the youtube
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Bukke
I think one point you're overlooking is that Larian's two previous games also had a party size of four.

We aren't overlooking it at all. We simply aren't happy about it.

Eh, I guess overlooking isn't the right term to use. I wasn't really referring to the players' response to Larian's decision, but rather the decision itself.
What I mean is just that I'm fairly certain the reason I listed was one of the reasons Larian decided to go with a 4 party size for BG3.
I'm aware of the interview. We're just telling Vinke he's wrong. That and if EA is really is a time to get feedback from fans and not just a way to quash bugs and generate hype they should accept that, sometimes, the devs are mistaken.

Like the Solasta devs did with light. We thought we were right, you told us we weren't so we are changing. Hoping to see the same attitude from Larian soon.

It's not an engine limitation -- indeed the 'mod' really only requires that you change one variable. Running with that variable changed does highlight some problems that need to be fixed anyway.
Five would be doable from any angle. And it would provide a better feel of a group with just enough diversity to cover most needs.

Six always felt like too much to me.

The interview, whatever, standard marketing talking points.
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Tuco

Fun side note: the main reason they went for five characters rather than six was because REAL-TIME COMBAT made it messy.


I know this is another thread but I want to underline this. The BG3 engine is better set up to use 6 party members than is PoE RtwP engine.

I hoping they will change but my suspicion at this point is that the resistance to 6 party members is based in:

* 6 exposes the weaknesses of the party control system
* 6 makes it clear that there are far few companions than BG2 had

Otherwise, I can't see a decent argument for 4 other than a desire to maintain the status quo.

I think one point you're overlooking is that Larian's two previous games also had a party size of four.
A sense of familiarity for the decision makers, developers and the demographic they deem to be their core user base also definitely plays a role.


On the contrary, it is precisely the fact that BG3 resembles Larian's old games and not previous BG titles that is the problem.
Why is such a big deal that a game of 2020 look less like a game of the 2000s made by another studio (no matter how good it is) than a modern game of the same studio?
If they have more resemblance with a game of 20 years ago that would be weird. The game industry advanced a lot in two decades.
Come on smile That's a straw man. No one is complaining about graphics.

It's a problem if it offers less than the original. And in terms of party size and NPC selection it is less. Sometimes, Less is Less.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Streamers and youtubers these days can be a HUGE part of the popularity of a release and the thing is: they absolutely hate to read dialogues aloud when playing for their audience.
I never tried to stream anything myself, but to be honest, I can't really blame them. I would hate doing it, too.



I definitely agree that the vast majority of streamers do NOT want to read a ton of text aloud on their streams. I watch a lot of streams, and this is a given. It annoys me a lot, actually. I love it when a streamer actually puts in the extra effort to read everything out. Even better if they do voices for the characters. Which is super rare.

I'm a very small-time streamer myself, and I actually DO specialize in playing these very text-heavy RPGs and reading every. single. word. out loud. All the dialogue, all the books, all the journal entries and lore codexes and what have you. And I voice act all the characters. I'm not a professional voice actor, so my voices range from semi-decent to terrible, but I put a lot of effort into it.

Some games I've completed on stream in this style include:

- Pillars of Eternity
- Sunless Sea
- Tyranny
- Torment: Tides of Numenera (holy shit the amount of reading!)
- Masquerada: Songs and Shadows
- Disco Elysium

And a bunch of partial playthroughs of pretty much every other game in this subgenre.

I find it really fun to do, if draining. Can be hard on the throat, need to keep well-hydrated. I wish more streamers would do this, but honestly the audience for it is pretty small and niche. EVEN when you have someone reading it all to you, most people don't want to watch games that are based on a ton of text.

But I really hope that SOMEONE keeps making those text-heavy RPGs, because they're my favorite kind of game.
My comment might warrant a separate topic, but for now, I'll put it here.

Honesty, Larian, and the Future of Baldur's Gate 3

I feel like any allegations against Larian of being dishonest is unfair. Granted, I wasn't a part of any of their EAs before, so my knowledge of the subject is limited to Baldur's Gate 3 development, but I feel like they provided a lot to me to work with to show my point. Time will tell, but from what Larian did so far with their updates (ever since the game's first presentation) was (somewhat) painfully honest. It would have been so much easier to release a trailer with only the best bits of the game, but instead, Larian CEO just decided to have a playthrough and risk the game bugging on him live (which it did, several times, with the last bug completely breaking the game). I don't know if Larian has any PR people (I assume they do), but I feel like every time Sven talks to someone they're probably banging their heads against the wall.

And this interview is not so different. Even the first response from Sven in the interview (“They're all horny, I can tell you that... So anybody who tells you the opposite, I can tell you that's not true.”) which I found funny and cute, made some people in this forum angry. But I guess that's not the issue most people here are so furious about...

The issue people here seem to be very mad about (and correct me if I'm wrong) is this line:
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

Now again, if I was a Larian PR guy, I would be very angry with this answer. this is the kind of honesty that makes people angry. It would have been much more easier to pull some " we are looking into all possibilities and will change things to suit as many players as possible" crap, but Sven said what he really thinks - It's impossible (yes, impossible) to please everyone and to only thing to do is to make the game you would want to play. And I'm sorry guys, but some of the things you hang on to here (six members party? really? this is the difference between legend and meh game? wow if it is that easy I wonder how come Baldur's Gate never had any successors) are not even remotely in a consensus as you think they are. It's not the topic of this thread, but a shortlist of things people think are a must and I disagree with completely (and sure I'm not the only one): 6 members party, day-night circle, more faithful D&D rule adaptation, removing camp, hp bloat (didn't even know it was a thing, pretty sure most players are on my camp on this), action\bonus action things I really don't understand much about (and lo and behold, I still enjoyed the gameplay, strange world).

Other than that, people seem to comment on the fact Sven addressed the issue with the RNG but not much else, which is not true as well. He did address the evil path and the companion choice, which are also a big point of criticism toward the game. Of particular interest is what he said on the evil path:
Quote
"The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”
There is nothing specific here about whether there would be changes to the evil path, but keeping the honesty title in mind, I simply think he doesn't want to commit to anything yet, probably because they are still debating about the nature of changes they are gonna make.

In the end, I am still very happy with this interview. My feeling is that there is still an internal debate in Larian about how to proceed with several issues that we raised during the last month and that Larian is not willing to commit to changing anything that there was no decision about yet.

a word about solasta - it's much easier to take feedback from 10 people than from 1000 people I think. And I honestly think solasta can be as faithful to D&D is it wants, but a short playthrough proved that you need much more than this to create a good game and many many games before proved it.
It's an interesting issue. Who gets to define what is a major criticism? What metric do we use to measure interest in an issue? I tend to see the evil path criticism as a niche one, you see it as central.

I think Vinke has been stressing evil from day one -- repeatedly asking EA players play evil, showcasing his ability to play evil, commenting on how many people play the evil path time and time again. And I think he is doing so because he knows without such encouragement most people will ignore the evil path. So where you see him addressing an issue that has come from the forums I see the continuation of a narrative that started before EA launched and the use of a forum topic as a pretext.

I truly think there are many more D&D ruleset threads, surface discontent threads and party size threads than 'evil playthrough' threads here, on reddit and on the beamdog and obsidian forums. I'd guesstimate the 'surface dissatisfaction' to 'evil path dissatisfaction' at a factor of 5 to 1?
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It's an interesting issue. Who gets to define what is a major criticism? What metric do we use to measure interest in an issue? I tend to see the evil path criticism as a niche one, you see it as central.

I think Vinke has been stressing evil from day one -- repeatedly asking EA players play evil, show casing his ability to play evil, commenting on how many people play the evil path time and time again. And I think he is doing so because he knows without such encouragement most people will ignore the evil path. So where you see addressing an issue that has come from the forums I see the continuation of a narrative that started before EA launched and the use of a forum topic as pretext.

I truly think there are many more D&D ruleset threads, surface discontent threads and party size threads than 'evil playthrough' threads here, on reddit and on the beamdog and obsidian forums. I guesstimate the 'surface dissatisfaction' to 'evil path dissatisfaction' at factor of 5 to 1?

I think you're ignoring or forgetting who comes to these forums. If everything I knew about the world was based on the post on the Bg3 section of these forums, I would say Solasta is probably the greatest RPG ever made and has millions of sales. I would also think Crpgs are the most popular genre of video games and that most players only care about D&D mechanics. I don't have time to give you a more detailed comment at the moment so I hope for now this will do.
i prefer an honest answer to PR speak
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't have time to give you a more detailed comment at the moment so I hope for now this will do.


No worries mate. We're not on the clock here, respond or don't smile

But I will say that I think most forum members want the two blended. Good lord Solasta is ugly. And I really think I could find a glee club that could do better voice acting. And it's a dungeon crawl. And the setting isn't anywhere as interesting as the Forgotten Realms.

But the combat is good and the devs are super responsive. Competition between devs is good.

Don't get me wrong. I like the BG3 story, the NPCs and it's a lovely world. I just want Solasta combat please smile
Originally Posted by Abits
My comment might warrant a separate topic, but for now, I'll put it here.

Honesty, Larian, and the Future of Baldur's Gate 3

I feel like any allegations against Larian of being dishonest is unfair. Granted, I wasn't a part of any of their EAs before, so my knowledge of the subject is limited to Baldur's Gate 3 development, but I feel like they provided a lot to me to work with to show my point. Time will tell, but from what Larian did so far with their updates (ever since the game's first presentation) was (somewhat) painfully honest. It would have been so much easier to release a trailer with only the best bits of the game, but instead, Larian CEO just decided to have a playthrough and risk the game bugging on him live (which it did, several times, with the last bug completely breaking the game). I don't know if Larian has any PR people (I assume they do), but I feel like every time Sven talks to someone they're probably banging their heads against the wall.

And this interview is not so different. Even the first response from Sven in the interview (“They're all horny, I can tell you that... So anybody who tells you the opposite, I can tell you that's not true.”) which I found funny and cute, made some people in this forum angry. But I guess that's not the issue most people here are so furious about...

The issue people here seem to be very mad about (and correct me if I'm wrong) is this line:
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

Now again, if I was a Larian PR guy, I would be very angry with this answer. this is the kind of honesty that makes people angry. It would have been much more easier to pull some " we are looking into all possibilities and will change things to suit as many players as possible" crap, but Sven said what he really thinks - It's impossible (yes, impossible) to please everyone and to only thing to do is to make the game you would want to play. And I'm sorry guys, but some of the things you hang on to here (six members party? really? this is the difference between legend and meh game? wow if it is that easy I wonder how come Baldur's Gate never had any successors) are not even remotely in a consensus as you think they are. It's not the topic of this thread, but a shortlist of things people think are a must and I disagree with completely (and sure I'm not the only one): 6 members party, day-night circle, more faithful D&D rule adaptation, removing camp, hp bloat (didn't even know it was a thing, pretty sure most players are on my camp on this), action\bonus action things I really don't understand much about (and lo and behold, I still enjoyed the gameplay, strange world).

Other than that, people seem to comment on the fact Sven addressed the issue with the RNG but not much else, which is not true as well. He did address the evil path and the companion choice, which are also a big point of criticism toward the game. Of particular interest is what he said on the evil path:
Quote
"The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”
There is nothing specific here about whether there would be changes to the evil path, but keeping the honesty title in mind, I simply think he doesn't want to commit to anything yet, probably because they are still debating about the nature of changes they are gonna make.

In the end, I am still very happy with this interview. My feeling is that there is still an internal debate in Larian about how to proceed with several issues that we raised during the last month and that Larian is not willing to commit to changing anything that there was no decision about yet.

a word about solasta - it's much easier to take feedback from 10 people than from 1000 people I think. And I honestly think solasta can be as faithful to D&D is it wants, but a short playthrough proved that you need much more than this to create a good game and many many games before proved it.



This is a good post.
Originally Posted by Sordak
i prefer an honest answer to PR speak

I seriously find Sven (Or is it Swen?) a refreshing developer after watching years of Todd Howard spin tales of much ado about nothing for years while riding on the coattails of his predecessors. Sven is a self made dev and knows when he has something good and when something is weak in his game. He knows the evil path needs work and that's why he has encouraged so many people to play it. Also I believe they have left the protagonists VA undone to leave room to alter the story as the game develops. And Just because they create new paths to doing evil things doesn't mean they have to nuke what they have and start over. It's a decent narrative that just needs some fleshing out.

Also, there is a mod page up on Nexus mods that explains how to increase party capacity to 6 for those interested. https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/16
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum

Also, there is a mod page up on Nexus mods that explains how to increase party capacity to 6 for those interested.


Sure. And it shows that the game is better with 6 party members. But the point that is that 'a mod will fix' it is not addressing the concern of those of us who believe that the game should come with native support.
I think you're forgetting how flat many of the characters are in BG 2 with maybe 2 -5 lines of voiced dialogue each and how much work Larian has left to do. BG 2 could only rope you in to caring about a companion if they had their own quest or lots of backstory(all delivered through text.) Now every companion has to be like that and it means we get less companions but more complex backstories for them. I believe less is more and wanting to have support for a larger party is fine but it is not a priority for them right now and that is reasonable.

BTW Dragon Age Origins set the precedent of modern 3d RPGs using 4 party members (devs called it a spiritual successor to BG) and it was quite effective and fun.
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
I think you're forgetting how flat many of the characters are in BG 2 with maybe 2 -5 lines of voiced dialogue each and how much work Larian has left to do. BG 2 could only rope you in to caring about a companion if they had their own quest or lots of backstory(all delivered through text.) Now every companion has to be like that and it means we get less companions but more complex backstories for them. I believe less is more and wanting to have support for a larger party is fine but it is not a priority for them right now and that is reasonable.

BTW Dragon Age Origins set the precedent of modern 3d RPGs using 4 party members (devs called it a spiritual successor to BG) and it was quite effective and fun.


Don't forget impregoing their eggo
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
I think you're forgetting how flat many of the characters are in BG 2 with maybe 2 -5 lines of voiced dialogue each and how much work Larian has left to do. BG 2 could only rope you in to caring about a companion if they had their own quest or lots of backstory(all delivered through text.) Now every companion has to be like that and it means we get less companions but more complex backstories for them. I believe less is more and wanting to have support for a larger party is fine but it is not a priority for them right now and that is reasonable.

BTW Dragon Age Origins set the precedent of modern 3d RPGs using 4 party members (devs called it a spiritual successor to BG) and it was quite effective and fun.


I disagree with the depth of the BG2 characters -- some were a deep as saucer and some were complex. Minsc was a great, shallow character and Jaheria was deep. I rarely got to the end of Jaheria romance there were so many interactions. And BG2 was loooong. I would take me 80 -- 100 hours to finish a completionist run of BG2 / TOB.

Personally I don't think it is "reasonable"* I think they took up the mantle of the most replayed game in RPG history and need to be held to that standard. I'd be interested in a comparison of lines of text for Astarian and Jaheria to see if the BG3 characters are in fact deeper.

This is just what happens when you take up a beloved franchise -- you get many, many more sales but you are held to a higher standard. Rogue one is a entirely decent sci flick -- but that's not the standard to which it was held. Again, such pressures come with the territory.




*reasonable wouldn't have been my choice of word, only using because it you did smile
"mods will fix it" is not the attitude here.
and a 6 party mod wouldnt do anyhting if it didnt also rebalance the entire game around a party of 6.

My point about sven was the following: anyone attempting to do BG3 and NOT admit that they wont make everyone happy is al iar.
The only way to weasle yoursle fout of that is PR speak.

Baldurs Gate exist more in peoples heads than on their computers, so what consittues a worthy sequal is different for everyone and usually not somethign feasably reachable.
any potential Baldurs Gate 3 that could come out, by any develope, would neccesarily be a compromise
I don't understand why this discussion has to turn into another "6 party members yes or no?". @KillerRabbit I think the fact of the matter is that no matter how right you are on the matter, the fact that people are still arguing with you (and it doesn't matter who's right) means there is no agreement on it even in this bastion of D&D and BG forum.
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
I think you're forgetting how flat many of the characters are in BG 2 with maybe 2 -5 lines of voiced dialogue each and how much work Larian has left to do. BG 2 could only rope you in to caring about a companion if they had their own quest or lots of backstory(all delivered through text.)


Low amount of voice acting makes companions flat? What? (Or did I misunderstand? But the way you wrote it does make it seem like it's implied.)

And no, companions in BG2 had A LOT of interaction, both with the PC and with each other. Not all were equally good, that's true (looking at you, Nalia), but most had quite a lot of depth. And as KillerRabbit said, some were shallow - but I think there's a place for "shallow", fun characters, both in old and in new games. Perhaps you're thinking about BG1, in which, yes, companions had just a tad more depth than cardboard. Fun cardboard, but still cardboard.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
Now every companion has to be like that and it means we get less companions but more complex backstories for them.


Usually I'd agree that quality>quantity, but I think Larian went too far. Yeah, the origins/companions have massive backstories and lots of content, but there's very little in terms of choice, and choice is of great importance in cRPGs. It won't do me any good that companions have so much stuff to them if there's not enough to choose from that I can have a party I actually care about. Not because of better/worse writing, but because I subjectively like some characters and dislike others.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
BTW Dragon Age Origins set the precedent of modern 3d RPGs using 4 party members (devs called it a spiritual successor to BG) and it was quite effective and fun.


Unfortunately, it did set the precedent. I was actually very disappointed with there being only four party members in DA:O. Apart from that, it was indeed a great, fun game. And I'd even say a decent spiritual successor.
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't understand why this discussion has to turn into another "6 party members yes or no?". @KillerRabbit I think the fact of the matter is that no matter how right you are on the matter, the fact that people are still arguing with you (and it doesn't matter who's right) means there is no agreement on it even in this bastion of D&D and BG forum.


I mean... is there anything that there IS agreement on? These forums or not? You'll even find the rare surface enthusiast.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't understand why this discussion has to turn into another "6 party members yes or no?". @KillerRabbit I think the fact of the matter is that no matter how right you are on the matter, the fact that people are still arguing with you (and it doesn't matter who's right) means there is no agreement on it even in this bastion of D&D and BG forum.


I mean... is there anything that there IS agreement on? These forums or not? You'll even find the rare surface enthusiast.

well, that's my point. check the previews page for a more detailed comment.
Originally Posted by Abits
My comment might warrant a separate topic, but for now, I'll put it here.

Honesty, Larian, and the Future of Baldur's Gate 3

I feel like any allegations against Larian of being dishonest is unfair. Granted, I wasn't a part of any of their EAs before, so my knowledge of the subject is limited to Baldur's Gate 3 development, but I feel like they provided a lot to me to work with to show my point. Time will tell, but from what Larian did so far with their updates (ever since the game's first presentation) was (somewhat) painfully honest. It would have been so much easier to release a trailer with only the best bits of the game, but instead, Larian CEO just decided to have a playthrough and risk the game bugging on him live (which it did, several times, with the last bug completely breaking the game). I don't know if Larian has any PR people (I assume they do), but I feel like every time Sven talks to someone they're probably banging their heads against the wall.

And this interview is not so different. Even the first response from Sven in the interview (“They're all horny, I can tell you that... So anybody who tells you the opposite, I can tell you that's not true.”) which I found funny and cute, made some people in this forum angry. But I guess that's not the issue most people here are so furious about...

The issue people here seem to be very mad about (and correct me if I'm wrong) is this line:
“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

Now again, if I was a Larian PR guy, I would be very angry with this answer. this is the kind of honesty that makes people angry. It would have been much more easier to pull some " we are looking into all possibilities and will change things to suit as many players as possible" crap, but Sven said what he really thinks - It's impossible (yes, impossible) to please everyone and to only thing to do is to make the game you would want to play. And I'm sorry guys, but some of the things you hang on to here (six members party? really? this is the difference between legend and meh game? wow if it is that easy I wonder how come Baldur's Gate never had any successors) are not even remotely in a consensus as you think they are. It's not the topic of this thread, but a shortlist of things people think are a must and I disagree with completely (and sure I'm not the only one): 6 members party, day-night circle, more faithful D&D rule adaptation, removing camp, hp bloat (didn't even know it was a thing, pretty sure most players are on my camp on this), action\bonus action things I really don't understand much about (and lo and behold, I still enjoyed the gameplay, strange world).

Other than that, people seem to comment on the fact Sven addressed the issue with the RNG but not much else, which is not true as well. He did address the evil path and the companion choice, which are also a big point of criticism toward the game. Of particular interest is what he said on the evil path:
Quote
"The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”
There is nothing specific here about whether there would be changes to the evil path, but keeping the honesty title in mind, I simply think he doesn't want to commit to anything yet, probably because they are still debating about the nature of changes they are gonna make.

In the end, I am still very happy with this interview. My feeling is that there is still an internal debate in Larian about how to proceed with several issues that we raised during the last month and that Larian is not willing to commit to changing anything that there was no decision about yet.

a word about solasta - it's much easier to take feedback from 10 people than from 1000 people I think. And I honestly think solasta can be as faithful to D&D is it wants, but a short playthrough proved that you need much more than this to create a good game and many many games before proved it.


very good post!

I have always found swen to be very honest and i find that i always get a good vibe from him.
While some things you mentioned like 6 members party, day-night circle would make the game better for me, it in no way will affect my general opinion of the game if i love or hate it will be based on the entirety of the game, not just 1 or 2 features that i would have preferred been included
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't understand why this discussion has to turn into another "6 party members yes or no?". @KillerRabbit I think the fact of the matter is that no matter how right you are on the matter, the fact that people are still arguing with you (and it doesn't matter who's right) means there is no agreement on it even in this bastion of D&D and BG forum.

I mean... is there anything that there IS agreement on? These forums or not? You'll even find the rare surface enthusiast.

well, that's my point. check the previews page for a more detailed comment.


Yeah, I've read it and to an extent I agree (I must thank you for restoring a bit of my faith in Larian), but I don't think "you can't please anyone" should be an excuse to not at least consider various criticisms. Perhaps this is not what Swen (or you) intended to say, but it does sound like a possible implication.

I also think most people realise there is no consensus. But since this forum is mostly feedback- and suggestion-oriented, that's what we provide. Each of us has an idea of what the game needs, and of course these ideas will often clash. But I believe a lot of good things can come out from these discussions and debates, even if no "consensus" is ever reached. In the end, this is not a democracy and Larian will do as Larian pleases. But what we can do is provide food for Larian's thought.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't understand why this discussion has to turn into another "6 party members yes or no?". @KillerRabbit I think the fact of the matter is that no matter how right you are on the matter, the fact that people are still arguing with you (and it doesn't matter who's right) means there is no agreement on it even in this bastion of D&D and BG forum.

I mean... is there anything that there IS agreement on? These forums or not? You'll even find the rare surface enthusiast.

well, that's my point. check the previews page for a more detailed comment.


Yeah, I've read it and to an extent I agree (I must thank you for restoring a bit of my faith in Larian), but I don't think "you can't please anyone" should be an excuse to not at least consider various criticisms. Perhaps this is not what Swen (or you) intended to say, but it does sound like a possible implication.

I also think most people realise there is no consensus. But since this forum is mostly feedback- and suggestion-oriented, that's what we provide. Each of us has an idea of what the game needs, and of course these ideas will often clash. But I believe a lot of good things can come out from these discussions and debates, even if no "consensus" is ever reached. In the end, this is not a democracy and Larian will do as Larian pleases. But what we can do is provide food for Larian's thought.



The biggest part of the ideas don't clash and the problems raised are very often the same... Even if there are lots of variety about solutions and even if "controversial" things like party size or HP bloat have more activity than other threads.

But after reading 160 forum pages of titles, tons of feedbacks and half the compendium... I think it's not impossible to create a mega list of suggestions that could pleased the huge majority of people talking here.
You're right that "you can't please everyone" is no excuse, but it's not exactly what Sven said:

Quote

“All of the things that people are suggesting were already on the list of things that we had to do,” says Vincke. “So they fit our roadmap. We are, to a large extent, in sync with our audience, I think. But there are things that we hadn't thought of. So it'll be interesting to see what they are going to add to the game.”

You can assume that when he says "all" he is a pretentious guy who didn't even read any feedback, or you can read the whole quote and assume that "all" was just a poor word choice, because later he specifically say there is some feedback he didn't think about. It goes back to my original title, how honest do you think he is?
Originally Posted by nation
based on larian's responses concerning evil/neutral companions already in game and the discussion about 12 or 8 npc companions in total im getting more concerned about what impact this may have for other aspects of the game, mainly the 4v6 party debate and the incorporation of blank merc companions. I could see larian keeping the party size at 4 (not a fan of btw) bc there is a limited roster to work with (which may be even more limited post act 1 companion/map locks - also not a fan of) and just rely on modders to up it to a party of 6. like others have posted, one npc per class i would have assumed being the bg standard, and then taking into alignment, you have a minimum of 24 possible good v evil npcs but it seems that larian prefers their origin character approach and supplemental mercenaries to round out a party of 4. While i dont dislike the merc approach (pretty sure we havent seen this in game yet) i would likely have preferred if larian chose one or the other - all origin characters that are full fleshed out but limited in number or all merc companions that have some limited dialogue but are larger in number and more variety in class, race, alignment, etc.

Ideally we would have 24 fleshed out companions to be found throughout the game but I would rather see a mix of both this and mercenaries rather than just a load of soulless characters to fill a group.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It's an interesting issue. Who gets to define what is a major criticism? What metric do we use to measure interest in an issue? I tend to see the evil path criticism as a niche one, you see it as central.

I think Vinke has been stressing evil from day one -- repeatedly asking EA players play evil, showcasing his ability to play evil, commenting on how many people play the evil path time and time again. And I think he is doing so because he knows without such encouragement most people will ignore the evil path. So where you see him addressing an issue that has come from the forums I see the continuation of a narrative that started before EA launched and the use of a forum topic as a pretext.

I truly think there are many more D&D ruleset threads, surface discontent threads and party size threads than 'evil playthrough' threads here, on reddit and on the beamdog and obsidian forums. I'd guesstimate the 'surface dissatisfaction' to 'evil path dissatisfaction' at a factor of 5 to 1?

It is a major issue to me simply because we were specifically asked to test it. I wouldn't have even thought to treat this as one otherwise, but I am glad they want this path to be considered since I tend to play neutral and sometimes evil in games and resent being railroaded into a good path always. If we were specifically asked to test how we felt with having a certain number of party members then this would be what I would have tested and treated as a major issue. (with this slow AI I find 4 to be tedious and dread how it would be with 6.) We are all going to have our preferences for a perfect game and everyone wants theirs to be the most important. It is up to them to figure out what they are best able to add/remove, modders will add the rest for people who want more specifics.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum

Also, there is a mod page up on Nexus mods that explains how to increase party capacity to 6 for those interested.


Sure. And it shows that the game is better with 6 party members. But the point that is that 'a mod will fix' it is not addressing the concern of those of us who believe that the game should come with native support.

It only shows the game is better with 6 for those that want that. Just like a mod that adds day/night cycle or any of the other "wants" listed on this forum would show the game is better with said mod to anyone who downloads it. Those who don't use the mod obviously would disagree.

Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

I also think most people realise there is no consensus. But since this forum is mostly feedback- and suggestion-oriented, that's what we provide. Each of us has an idea of what the game needs, and of course these ideas will often clash. But I believe a lot of good things can come out from these discussions and debates, even if no "consensus" is ever reached. In the end, this is not a democracy and Larian will do as Larian pleases. But what we can do is provide food for Larian's thought.

Agreed. I have hope that Larian can compromise and change things a lot better than certain developers of another game (FO76) where they listened to the people crying and screeching the loudest and ruined so much.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The biggest part of the ideas don't clash and the problems raised are very often the same... Even if there are lots of variety about solutions and even if "controversial" things like party size or HP bloat have more activity than other threads.

But after reading 160 forum pages of titles, tons of feedbacks and half the compendium... I think it's not impossible to create a mega list of suggestions that could pleased the huge majority of people talking here.


My main point was that there is no "perfect" consensus and there will always be someone that disagrees, but I agree that there's a lot of areas many players generally point out as problematic. There's also the problem of vocal minority and so on, and on the other hand even if we were able to do reliable statistics, they may not be good for anything, because a large portion of playerbase is casuals who'll just go "yeah, I'm fine with how it is now", even if they might enjoy the alternative more.

But don't get me wrong, personally I agree with many common points being made on these forums and I think the game would be better if they were addressed.

Originally Posted by Abits
You're right that "you can't please everyone" is no excuse, but it's not exactly what Sven said:
Quote

“All of the things that people are suggesting were already on the list of things that we had to do,” says Vincke. “So they fit our roadmap. We are, to a large extent, in sync with our audience, I think. But there are things that we hadn't thought of. So it'll be interesting to see what they are going to add to the game.”

You can assume that when he says "all" he is a pretentious guy who didn't even read any feedback, or you can read the whole quote and assume that "all" was just a poor word choice, because later he specifically say there is some feedback he didn't think about. It goes back to my original title, how honest do you think he is?


Yeah, hence my disclaimer of "perhaps it's not whan Swen intended to say". I certainly don't take "all" in this interview literally, it's quite obvious he's just generalizing and I have no problem with that. My comment on "impossible to please anyone" was mainly based on the part about modding creating a BG3 flavour for everyone and partially on your earlier post. Now I'm probably reading too much into this, perhaps it's just Swen "PR-disaster" speak, haha. This is something that makes me worried (by being potentially implied), but by no means something I consider "outright stated by the devs".
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum

Also, there is a mod page up on Nexus mods that explains how to increase party capacity to 6 for those interested.


Sure. And it shows that the game is better with 6 party members. But the point that is that 'a mod will fix' it is not addressing the concern of those of us who believe that the game should come with native support.


I think many of the people here don't realize that what they consider better to be subjective. Sure, you can create some metrics, for example, you could argue that 5e is a more balanced system and then using balance as a metric argue that it is better. But what if the game Swen is trying to make, isn't supposed to be balanced? And don't take this to mean that I am perfectly happy with the game as is and believe that everything is fine and dandy. My "ideal" game has a lot of differences from the product which is being produced here. I can give you some easy examples, I am at core a simulationest, I like worlds which have a high degree of "realism" where everything is explainable and makes sense. As a result of this, I like a lot of mechanics which I can tell you without even polling people, most people hate. For example, I like the following:

• Encumbrance Systems.
• Hunger Systems.
• Fatigue.
• HP for individual body parts (think Deus Ex).
• Item Durability.
• Magic systems that actually make sense (The Vancian system fails here horribly in my opinion).
• Realism in inventory storage (stuff like heavily restrictive inventory tetris).

I could list a whole bunch of other things, but you get the idea. My ideal game would be a game so niche that its target audience is probably only 1 person and its not realistic to expect any company to make that game. But here is the thing - Swen isn't trying to make my ideal game or your ideal game, he is trying to make his studio's ideal game. As a result of this, there will be some very large deviations from something that you want, that I want and that they want. This isn't to say feedback is useless - obviously it isn't, but its likely far more useful for them if you identify what you dislike and why you dislike it, rather than trying to propose solutions for how to go about making it something that you like. I am also guilty of this and I won't deny that I like to throw out my hows just as much as anyone else, but I do that in the full knowledge that I expect that my solution will be completely ignored. What I expect isn't for them to implement my solutions, what I expect is for them to figure out how to address that dislike, whilst still making the game that they intend to make. Sometimes, this is impossible and the thing that I dislike is fundamentally at odds with one of their design pillars and in those cases, there can be no reconciliation.

What would be nice is if they would draw up a list and say, "these are the things we are unwilling to budge on," just so players know what not to waste time providing feedback on, but I also understand that giving that kind of message to a group of people is a very quick way to lose that particular sales group, so there is a strong incentive not to do so. It also might send the wrong message if not worded very carefully and players might interpret that thing they are unwilling to budge on to be much larger or smaller than it actually is.

Added to all of this, you have the fact that this forum represents a "bubble" in online spaces, where its community is only a microcosm of the entire game's community. I can tell you without polling the forum, on the whole, the majority of people here want the game to be closer to 5e, have a better camera system, have less surfaces and have a higher party limit. Some of those things I even happen to agree with. That doesn't mean it represents the majority view however, it only represents the view of this community. Btw, in the game's code next to the party limit of 4, there is a comment which says, "make it support up to 8 because we know modders will add that anyhow." They know that people want stuff like that, but they also know that is not the default experience they are trying to present to the world. To be honest they should probably just have a difficulty option that allows you to change the party size with a default setting of 4.
Too many "I feel" posts not enough evidence. Just wait till next update to see what has changed. Don't let emotions cloud your mind. Just wait and see. Nothing is concrete right now.
@Abits, based on your own post, it is also the case that the things you would like to see changed or "fixed" in the game are also things that don't have a consensus around them. So then perhaps the best course for Larian is to indeed ignore all the criticisms and feedback and keep things as is. For anyone (not singling you out here) to say "my feedback is meaningful and should be addressed, but other people's feedback which I disagree with should be ignored" would be disingenuous.
Originally Posted by Sharp


I think many of the people here don't realize that what they consider better to be subjective. Sure, you can create some metrics, for example, you could argue that 5e is a more balanced system and then using balance as a metric argue that it is better. But what if the game Swen is trying to make, isn't supposed to be balanced? And don't take this to mean that I am perfectly happy with the game as is and believe that everything is fine and dandy. My "ideal" game has a lot of differences from the product which is being produced here. I can give you some easy examples, I am at core a simulationest, I like worlds which have a high degree of "realism" where everything is explainable and makes sense. As a result of this, I like a lot of mechanics which I can tell you without even polling people, most people hate. For example, I like the following:

• Encumbrance Systems.
• Hunger Systems.
• Fatigue.
• HP for individual body parts (think Deus Ex).
• Item Durability.
• Magic systems that actually make sense (The Vancian system fails here horribly in my opinion).
• Realism in inventory storage (stuff like heavily restrictive inventory tetris).

I could list a whole bunch of other things, but you get the idea. My ideal game would be a game so niche that its target audience is probably only 1 person and its not realistic to expect any company to make that game. But here is the thing - Swen isn't trying to make my ideal game or your ideal game, he is trying to make his studio's ideal game. As a result of this, there will be some very large deviations from something that you want, that I want and that they want. This isn't to say feedback is useless - obviously it isn't, but its likely far more useful for them if you identify what you dislike and why you dislike it, rather than trying to propose solutions for how to go about making it something that you like. I am also guilty of this and I won't deny that I like to throw out my hows just as much as anyone else, but I do that in the full knowledge that I expect that my solution will be completely ignored. What I expect isn't for them to implement my solutions, what I expect is for them to figure out how to address that dislike, whilst still making the game that they intend to make. Sometimes, this is impossible and the thing that I dislike is fundamentally at odds with one of their design pillars and in those cases, there can be no reconciliation.

What would be nice is if they would draw up a list and say, "these are the things we are unwilling to budge on," just so players know what not to waste time providing feedback on, but I also understand that giving that kind of message to a group of people is a very quick way to lose that particular sales group, so there is a strong incentive not to do so. It also might send the wrong message if not worded very carefully and players might interpret that thing they are unwilling to budge on to be much larger or smaller than it actually is.

Added to all of this, you have the fact that this forum represents a "bubble" in online spaces, where its community is only a microcosm of the entire game's community. I can tell you without polling the forum, on the whole, the majority of people here want the game to be closer to 5e, have a better camera system, have less surfaces and have a higher party limit. Some of those things I even happen to agree with. That doesn't mean it represents the majority view however, it only represents the view of this community. Btw, in the game's code next to the party limit of 4, there is a comment which says, "make it support up to 8 because we know modders will add that anyhow." They know that people want stuff like that, but they also know that is not the default experience they are trying to present to the world. To be honest they should probably just have a difficulty option that allows you to change the party size with a default setting of 4.



Whoa there, whoa there, whoa there, sir and/or madam. Pump the brakes with all of this unadulterated reason.

This post is far too rational and articulate for the Greater Gaming Internet. Could you maybe edit it to fit into the milieu a little better? Maybe randomly call some people noobs, or make some specious claim about false advertising, or something?

That's the idea for original post: to get information (from articles, journalists, who gave the right set of questions) - what are the things Larian wouldn't budge on.

It would save so much time for so much people to direct their feedback whenever it is needed, or simply get off the horse because it is going the wrong way, for them.
Yikes, the things that happen when you log off. So much to respond to apologies in advance if I fail to respond to a point made about one my posts. Wasn't intentional.

And I'm so much in agreement with what @uncle lester @kanisatha and @maximuus have said I can probably get away with saying +1 and I wish I could express myself as well you have smile

@abits On the 6 party discussion -- we could substitute any 'big forum' issues for that one. My point is really about whether the issues mentioned in the interview are ones that have authentically bubbled up from the forums or if the management has selected a few that they were always planning to comment on. And I think it's the latter -- they were talking about those issues before EA period.

I think we all have a pretty good sense of what the forum wants to see addressed. Indeed one the best sources for that sense of the forum comes from people who want say the forum is not representative of the larger playing public.

@sharp has said
Quote

I can tell you without polling the forum, on the whole, the majority of people here want the game to be closer to 5e, have a better camera system, have less surfaces and have a higher party limit.


And I agree with this list even if I (respectfully) believe that it undercuts the main point of the post. Those issues are not like hunger mechanics and not niche for the population of the this forum (or of reddit). Food is something for modders to deal with while surfaces and party size aren't.

@abits has said:

Quote
if everything I knew about the world was based on the post on the Bg3 section of these forums, I would say Solasta is probably the greatest RPG ever made and has millions of sales. I would also think Crpgs are the most popular genre of video games and that most players only care about D&D mechanics.


And @maximuus

Quote
things like party size or HP bloat have more activity than other threads.


So we've got a good list. Sure a poll would nail it down but I think we have general agreement on the big issues: party size, D&D ruleset and surfaces. I'd also throw in party management -- that thread is only as short as it is because no one is willing to take the "party management is great" side.

And those issues weren't addressed.

Now @abits if I were you I would be starting to feel a bit frustrated because you devoted considerable effort to the post that started this discussion and I ignored its major motif. And to be honest I did so deliberately because it takes the conversation in a direction that I don't feel entirely comfortable with. I try not to refer to people's personalities when making points. But, because you put in the effort, and because I sincerely appreciate your posts and your willingness to engage I'll see if I can address your main point without discussing personality.

I see Vinke as a CEO engaged in viral marketing. I think marketing falls into a no mans land between honesty and dishonesty. In the U.S. this actually a legal defense -- the puffery defense. We just expect that marketers are engaging in a type of discourse that is strategic in nature and does not adhere to the same truth criteria that other discourses do. The Onion has been mocking this for decades with it's claim to "America's Finest News Source" -- a claim that is entirely legal under the puffery defense. Every pizza chain CEO is going to claim to have the best pizza made with the freshest ingredients and every video game CEO is going to say that they are taking feedback very seriously. I think it's a good practice to be skeptical of such claims and to ask if the statements accord with evidence.

Nice guy trying to sell me something might capture it.

I might need to make another post about this -- because it's a difficult point to make briefly -- but I think it's a mistake to ever come to a position based upon the imaginary opinions of other people who are not like us. I think that leads to a way of thinking that abstracts people from themselves; it's a dissociative mode of thinking. We know what we like and we should express those opinions -- let the people who don't like RPGs speak for themselves, we don't have to imagine them into the conversation.


Incidentally, if you do agree with the list -- that the forum wants to see megathreads on the D&D ruleset, sufaces, party size and party management you should contribute to this thread so we can get those threads:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=702537#Post702537
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That's the idea for original post: to get information (from articles, journalists, who gave the right set of questions) - what are the things Larian wouldn't budge on.

It would save so much time for so much people to direct their feedback whenever it is needed, or simply get off the horse because it is going the wrong way, for them.
Story feedback is very important then, because of the resource cost associated with making changes there. I'm not sure if there has been a lot of news on that front at all.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
I think you're forgetting how flat many of the characters are in BG 2 with maybe 2 -5 lines of voiced dialogue each and how much work Larian has left to do. BG 2 could only rope you in to caring about a companion if they had their own quest or lots of backstory(all delivered through text.)


Low amount of voice acting makes companions flat? What? (Or did I misunderstand? But the way you wrote it does make it seem like it's implied.)

And no, companions in BG2 had A LOT of interaction, both with the PC and with each other. Not all were equally good, that's true (looking at you, Nalia), but most had quite a lot of depth. And as KillerRabbit said, some were shallow - but I think there's a place for "shallow", fun characters, both in old and in new games. Perhaps you're thinking about BG1, in which, yes, companions had just a tad more depth than cardboard. Fun cardboard, but still cardboard.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
Now every companion has to be like that and it means we get less companions but more complex backstories for them.


Usually I'd agree that quality>quantity, but I think Larian went too far. Yeah, the origins/companions have massive backstories and lots of content, but there's very little in terms of choice, and choice is of great importance in cRPGs. It won't do me any good that companions have so much stuff to them if there's not enough to choose from that I can have a party I actually care about. Not because of better/worse writing, but because I subjectively like some characters and dislike others.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
BTW Dragon Age Origins set the precedent of modern 3d RPGs using 4 party members (devs called it a spiritual successor to BG) and it was quite effective and fun.


Unfortunately, it did set the precedent. I was actually very disappointed with there being only four party members in DA:O. Apart from that, it was indeed a great, fun game. And I'd even say a decent spiritual successor.


I miswrote and was implying that yes, some had to be flat because of the limitations of the technology available but I agree many were surprisingly deep and fun to learn about. Now we need to see what their mercenary system looks like and see if there will be some mid level companions that have dialogue but not a fully fleshed out backstory later on. But I think we should prioritize things that strictly can never be modded reasonably (like story and characters) over the stuff we can mod easily already like combat mechanics.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That's the idea for original post: to get information (from articles, journalists, who gave the right set of questions) - what are the things Larian wouldn't budge on.

It would save so much time for so much people to direct their feedback whenever it is needed, or simply get off the horse because it is going the wrong way, for them.
Story feedback is very important then, because of the resource cost associated with making changes there. I'm not sure if there has been a lot of news on that front at all.


I think all feedback is important. I've seen people change a horse's direction and even use necromancy to beat dead horse back to life. The evil path is a good example. Only 10 to maybe 30 percent of people play evil playthroughs and a number of devs have said "not enough interest to justify the resource cost" I was on the Bioware forums back when people were demanding more evil options and the devs said -- time and time again -- that the FR were a heroic setting and heroism would always be the default and evil parties would have limited options.

And fans of evil RP beat that horse and beat that horse until they got RPG devs to commit to providing a viable evil path and even develop games that took evil as the default. Even though the Tyranny sales numbers (once again) confirm that 'evil path' is a highly vocal niche audience, that rotting horse gallops along.

We can learn much from the ways of the necromancers.
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
Now we need to see what their mercenary system looks like


From what I understand, there'll be both a custom party system (like you can get with multiplayer), where every character is (I presume) a tadpoled "protagonist", and mercenaries, who are going to be completely soulless and fully customizable random Joes recruited somewhere later.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
and see if there will be some mid level companions that have dialogue but not a fully fleshed out backstory later on


This is something I'm often repeating. That's 3 levels of companions. Origins with rich stories and interactions; less involved non-origin companions for variety (I suggest ranging between BG1 and BG2 in character depth); custom characters or mercenaries for full control over your party. Ideally, 12 origins + 12 non-origin companions (1+1/class), but that's probably unrealistic. Would be great, though.

Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
But I think we should prioritize things that strictly can never be modded reasonably (like story and characters) over the stuff we can mod easily already like combat mechanics.


I think we should provide feedback on everything and let Larian decide what they need from it. It's not like we can decide, anyway. And again, I think modding is no excuse for the base game being flawed - although yes, if I had to choose, I'd go with better story and characters.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

I think we should provide feedback on everything and let Larian decide what they need from it. It's not like we can decide, anyway. And again, I think modding is no excuse for the base game being flawed - although yes, if I had to choose, I'd go with better story and characters.


I agree. But it's much easier to get some changes on mechanics and gameplay than story and characters. Because story and character arcs are subjective matters. They are time consuming to write and not so trivial to modify. It can be very difficult to get a consensus on what to keep or not compared to gameplay features. And also, players won't agree much on what a good character is either.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That's the idea for original post: to get information (from articles, journalists, who gave the right set of questions) - what are the things Larian wouldn't budge on.

It would save so much time for so much people to direct their feedback whenever it is needed, or simply get off the horse because it is going the wrong way, for them.
Story feedback is very important then, because of the resource cost associated with making changes there. I'm not sure if there has been a lot of news on that front at all.


I think all feedback is important. I've seen people change a horse's direction and even use necromancy to beat dead horse back to life. The evil path is a good example. Only 10 to maybe 30 percent of people play evil playthroughs and a number of devs have said "not enough interest to justify the resource cost" I was on the Bioware forums back when people were demanding more evil options and the devs said -- time and time again -- that the FR were a heroic setting and heroism would always be the default and evil parties would have limited options.

And fans of evil RP beat that horse and beat that horse until they got RPG devs to commit to providing a viable evil path and even develop games that took evil as the default. Even though the Tyranny sales numbers (once again) confirm that 'evil path' is a highly vocal niche audience, that rotting horse gallops along.

We can learn much from the ways of the necromancers.


Let me beat that horse some more. NWN 2 OC/mask of the betrayer/mysteries of westgate had a viable evil path and it worked well. They were set in a D&D setting. BG2 had an evil ending (the path it self could have used a bit more work but it was there). Just because you don't like to play as evil is no reason to cut other people off from what they enjoy in a -roleplaying- game. And nobody forces you to only play a game once, you can replay it and enjoy different paths. As for Tyranny it sounded not very evil to me, I played it for a short while and everywhere there were options to work around being evil and actually be good. I found that very disappointing and somewhat embarrassing. If you say you're going to make an evil focused game then stick to your guns. On top of that I didn't found the setting very appealing since you basically start at the ending where evil has already won. It's the journey that interests me, the rest is just bureaucratic drivel.
Quote
Just because you don't like to play as evil is no reason to cut other people off from what they enjoy in a -roleplaying- game.


Sure. Did you see me saying anything different? My points were: 1) this is an example where beating a dead horse worked and 2) be careful with calling things 'niche' because such arguments are easily turned against you. Devs devote that much attention to content that interests 10-30 percent of players because they fear backlash from fans and no other reasons.

And I want evil paths in the game -- otherwise my good actions are meaningless. I don't like it when writers try to keep things so open that there is no main narrative. So far BG3 has gotten it right -- the hag is perfect. You can rescue the innocent and kill the evil doer. You can take revenge on the hag that ruined your eye and gave you nothing in return. You let her continue to torture and exploit in exchange for an stat score boost.

Glad you liked NWN2 smile Didn't like it myself, never finished the main campaign. Actually I don't think I spend more that 10 hours on it before I said "that was money wasted".
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Ellenhard
That's the idea for original post: to get information (from articles, journalists, who gave the right set of questions) - what are the things Larian wouldn't budge on.

It would save so much time for so much people to direct their feedback whenever it is needed, or simply get off the horse because it is going the wrong way, for them.
Story feedback is very important then, because of the resource cost associated with making changes there. I'm not sure if there has been a lot of news on that front at all.


I think all feedback is important. I've seen people change a horse's direction and even use necromancy to beat dead horse back to life. The evil path is a good example. Only 10 to maybe 30 percent of people play evil playthroughs and a number of devs have said "not enough interest to justify the resource cost" I was on the Bioware forums back when people were demanding more evil options and the devs said -- time and time again -- that the FR were a heroic setting and heroism would always be the default and evil parties would have limited options.

And fans of evil RP beat that horse and beat that horse until they got RPG devs to commit to providing a viable evil path and even develop games that took evil as the default. Even though the Tyranny sales numbers (once again) confirm that 'evil path' is a highly vocal niche audience, that rotting horse gallops along.

We can learn much from the ways of the necromancers.


You are not even playing evil path in tyranny, you are playing predictably the rebellious little protagonist who got mysterious boost of power to develop like a thousand million other rpgs. Lawful evil was only added like 2 years after the game was released (as in you did your job and you call your lord to finish the game).
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

And I agree with this list even if I (respectfully) believe that it undercuts the main point of the post. Those issues are not like hunger mechanics and not niche for the population of the this forum (or of reddit). Food is something for modders to deal with while surfaces and party size aren't.

I feel like you entirely missed the point of my post. My point was (in as few words as possible), the experience Larian is trying to create is their subjective opinion of what makes a good RPG, it is not yours or mine, which means that there are going to be some things which they do not budge on and nor should we expect them to. It would be helpful if they would tell us what those things were though, so we could stop with the speculation.

Some of the popular topics, probably are not niche, I imagine the camera controls are one of the ones that are not a niche complaint. Incidentally, I have had an argument with some of the senior developers of another game over the camera in the past where their response was (I am paraphrasing here), "I understand you do not like it, but we are trying to portray the game in a certain way and changing the way the camera handles would detract from the intended experience." I very much hope its not the same case here, because I am also in the, "I want the camera controls changed," camp, but if the camera controls here are not changed, I would not be surprised if they have a similar reason as this.

Complaints like 5e purity I imagine are likely to be quite niche. Whilst there is some cross over between people who play tabletop and people who play video games, the market for video games is much, much bigger than the market for tabletop games. There are individual games whose value dwarfs the entire of WoTC, the obvious one that comes to mind being minecraft for example. Whilst I evidently cannot conclusively prove that the majority of people who would play BG3 are actually going to be gamers and not players from tabletop, what we do know is that people are far more likely to post about something that they do not like than about things that they do like. This forum illustrates this very well, especially since there were at least 3 crowds with preconceived expectations of what they would get from this game before it even hit the early access. The first being the Tabletop 5e fans, the second being the BG 1 and 2 fans, the third being the DOS fans. The point being, it is very, very likely that the people who are on the forums (myself included) do not represent the average player and their wants, because only outliers look to start providing feedback to begin with.

A strong argument can also be made that the average player does not know what they want and will accept almost anything they are told is good. An excellent example of this is this story here, but even making these arguments is ignoring the fact that the game that Larian is trying to make is obviously not driven entirely by popularity or even by feedback from a focused group, but by what they want to make.

Incidentally, I fall into all 3 camps to some extent, I still have the disks for Divine Divinity from when it first released, the same is true for Baldur's Gate and I am familiar with the D&D rules. In some cases, I feel like the game would benefit with sticking closer to the 5e rules, in others I do not. I don't believe in following traditions for the sake of it, if something can be done better, then go for the improvement.
I understood quite well. I just think you are mistaken and gave a concrete example that udercuts your point. Understanding /= agreement.

To the contrary, you have simply repeated your point about 'niche' without acknowledging any of my points. One of my points -- one backed by evidence -- is that devs do indeed cater to vocal minorities. So even if we were accept that people who would prefer a more faithful port of D&D ruleset are a niche market -- and they are not -- that doesn't mean they cannot have an impact. Lovers of evil paths have an outsized influence on the decisions of devs.

If you are saying that feedback on the forum has no chance of influencing Larian you are making a far more sweeping critique of the Early Access model than I am willing to make at the point. I'm taking Larian's offer at face value. "You pay for early access, help us quash some bugs and by participating in the forum you have a chance of influencing the final outcome."

If you were right and
Quote
[the] game that Larian is trying to make is obviously not driven entirely by popularity or even by feedback from a focused group, but by what they want to make.
Then EA is a sham and the promise to listen to feedback is meaningless hype -- I don't believe that. I'm not willing to go there yet.

As for the market I think we already have good reason to believe that the market is something other than the typical gaming market -- the extra sales are not coming from DOS fans but from people who tune into critical role and people who loved BG. Indeed I only played DOS when I heard Larian got this contract.

Also, count me allergic to elitist appeals like "people don't know what they want". If you decided to come here and share your opinion it's because you have one and that goes for both the l33t and the hoi polloi. *Beams with pleb pride*

Now we do agree that it would be nice to have better communication. And I want a poll of the forums so we have a better sense of the numbers.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
@Abits, based on your own post, it is also the case that the things you would like to see changed or "fixed" in the game are also things that don't have a consensus around them. So then perhaps the best course for Larian is to indeed ignore all the criticisms and feedback and keep things as is. For anyone (not singling you out here) to say "my feedback is meaningful and should be addressed, but other people's feedback which I disagree with should be ignored" would be disingenuous.

Yeah but I never said my issues are more important. Moreover, I explained in my big "Larian's biggest oversight" post that I think it's not issues per se, but a design philosophy I strongly disagree with, but perhaps there are people who find appealing (and if you read the comments. All I can do is give my feedback and hope Larian will consider it. And like I said, again, from here on out it's a matter of how much Larian is willing to do things differently. But I don't think it is a matter of completely ignoring me because they don't find my comment valuable.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

So even if we were accept that people who would prefer a more faithful port of D&D ruleset are a niche market - and they are not

This is an assumption. Prove it. I will wait, since you cannot. The entirity of Husbro (the owner of WoTC, as well as a number of other companies) is valued at ~12b USD. Of that, WoTC is only a fraction. The largest part of WoTC is Magic: The Gathering, it is not D&D. When WoTC was bought out by Husbro, it was bought for ~325m USD. Even if we estimate today it to be worth ~1B USD, my point still stands, as only a fraction of this (and a fraction smaller than 50%), is made up by D&D. For comparison, Minecraft sold to Microsoft for over 2 billion $ and it is a single game. Just recently Bethesda was purchased for 7.5 Billion. In comparison to the number of people who play games on either a PC or Console, the number of people who play any tabletop game at all, be it D&D, Pathfinder, or anything else is tiny. Of those people who do play tabletop, how many of them do you think care that a port is 100% faithful. I would hazard a guess and say, not all of them. Probably not even most.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

To the contrary, you have simply repeated your point about 'niche' without acknowledging any of my points. One of my points -- one backed by evidence -- is that devs do indeed cater to vocal minorities.

They cater to vocal minorities when what the vocal minority wants does not go against their core design pillars. There is a very active vocal minority in Path of Exile which has been asking for an auction house since the game first released, its been 8 years or so now and they have not only been told no, the developers have written very long essays explaining why, in detail, they will not add one. Maybe, just maybe, if a development team is not entirely opposed to implementing something then it gets included into the game.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

If you are saying that feedback on the forum has no chance of influencing Larian you are making a far more sweeping critique of the Early Access model than I am willing to make at the point. I'm taking Larian's offer at face value. "You pay for early access, help us quash some bugs and by participating in the forum you have a chance of influencing the final outcome."

If you were right and
Quote
[the] game that Larian is trying to make is obviously not driven entirely by popularity or even by feedback from a focused group, but by what they want to make.
Then EA is a sham and the promise to listen to feedback is meaningless hype -- I don't believe that. I'm not willing to go there yet.

I didn't say that, I just said that the type of feedback they likely find valuable is not the type of feedback many people are giving. The evil path is actually a very good example of this. Saying, "I dislike this game because I want to roleplay as an evil character," tells them exactly why you do not like it, it does not tell them how to go about implementing one. This is useful feedback for them, because understanding why someone dislikes your product helps a great deal in going about addressing the dislike. An analogy to explaining how would be you, as a player, writing your own fan fiction evil path and then expecting the developers to implement that. This is similar to much of the mechanics based feedback which has been given, which is very much, "this is how I want the mechanics to be," and not, "this is why I dislike the mechanics." This is, I suspect, why they commented on the dislike of missing (not something i personally mind at all), because the feedback surrounding missing was focused all on the why and not so much the how. I can give lots of examples of how you could "alleviate the strain of missing," for example counters, but this was not the type of feedback which was provided in much of the missing discussion.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

As for the market I think we already have good reason to believe that the market is something other than the typical gaming market -- the extra sales are not coming from DOS fans but from people who tune into critical role and people who loved BG. Indeed I only played DOS when I heard Larian got this contract.

The extra sales are likely coming from the heavy marketing and pr campaigns the game is running, this game has featured almost everywhere, from stadia, to the recent apple unveiling, to gaming conventions, etc. Skyrim or Diablo 3 have both, on their own, sold more than D&D 5e. These are both games which have a similar target audience to BG 3. There is some increase in sales from the tabletop fanbase, but you would be absolutely deluding yourself if you thought that most of the sales would be coming from anything other than the gaming market itself. The gaming industry is valued at ~90 billion USD. Its the 4th biggest entertainment industry in the world. Tabletop games are not even in the same ball park as it, they are sitting outside somewhere on the street, looking in jealously.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Also, count me allergic to elitist appeals like "people don't know what they want". If you decided to come here and share your opinion it's because you have one and that goes for both the l33t and the hoi polloi. *Beams with pleb pride*

The people who I have seen making this argument so far on this forum are those most strongly in favor of 5e, "we know the system the best, clearly our opinion is the most important, random purchaser will buy the game anyhow - A few, unnamed 5e purists." Glad you are not in that boat, but best to make sure.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Now we do agree that it would be nice to have better communication. And I want a poll of the forums so we have a better sense of the numbers.

Here it is for you. It more or less confirms exactly what I said in terms of what the forums want. Here was my comment on said poll.
Originally Posted by Sharp

The Literary Digest Poll conducted in 1936, polled 2.4 million people and predicted Landon would win. In reality, Roosevelt won. The results were not even close to the prediction either. The irony is, it is 1 of the largest polls ever conducted and yet as a result of a sampling bias it was not representative of the population.

I don't need to create a survey to tell you that the majority of the controversy on this forum is about how faithfully the D&D rules are adopted as well as well as whether or not the rules are RtwP vs turn based, you can tell that just by looking at the threads. This survey tells you nothing we don't already know about this forum, which is my point, the forum is not representative of the game's population, in fact, its not even representative of all the people who read the forum, its only representative of those who respond. At no point did I assume that the people who were responding were trolls, I know that for the most part, the people responding genuinely held that opinion, I am just pointing out that this survey isn't useful for Larian, because we know that its biased to begin with and that for a player its only real purpose is to be incorrectly used as an argument point.

The problem with the survey is the problem I keep repeating, over and over again. The forum has a very clear and obvious sampling bias.
Very useful and insightful comment @Sharp. Most of it is something I always suspected but didn't have much to base it on other than "If people in this forum were the majority Solasta was a million copies success and not BG3" logic conclusion, but numbers are always better.
Quote
I didn't say that, I just said that the type of feedback they likely find valuable is not the type of feedback many people are giving. The evil path is actually a very good example of this. Saying, "I dislike this game because I want to roleplay as an evil character," tells them exactly why you do not like it, it does not tell them how to go about implementing one. This is useful feedback for them, because understanding why someone dislikes your product helps a great deal in going about addressing the dislike. An analogy to explaining how would be you, as a player, writing your own fan fiction evil path and then expecting the developers to implement that. This is similar to much of the mechanics based feedback which has been given, which is very much, "this is how I want the mechanics to be," and not, "this is why I dislike the mechanics." This is, I suspect, why they commented on the dislike of missing (not something i personally mind at all), because the feedback surrounding missing was focused all on the why and not so much the how. I can give lots of examples of how you could "alleviate the strain of missing," for example counters, but this was not the type of feedback which was provided in much of the missing discussion.

I talked before and said that I'm no Larian employee, so it's not my job to find a solution, only to point at the problem, and this is true.
Quote
I just said that the type of feedback they likely find valuable is not the type of feedback many people are giving. The evil path is actually a very good example of this. Saying, "I dislike this game because I want to roleplay as an evil character," tells them exactly why you do not like it, it does not tell them how to go about implementing one. This is useful feedback for them, because understanding why someone dislikes your product helps a great deal in going about addressing the dislike. An analogy to explaining how would be you, as a player, writing your own fan fiction evil path and then expecting the developers to implement that. This is similar to much of the mechanics based feedback which has been given, which is very much, "this is how I want the mechanics to be," and not, "this is why I dislike the mechanics."


Well said but problematic. A. I'm not sure how you were able to divine this criteria and B. I think you are ignoring or dismissing the many reasons given for the changes to the mechanics. Reasons like "I think this game plays more like DOS than BG2" is a reason for a 6 person party. I want to use a buffer cleric and melee cleric and still have room for a thief, mage and fighter is a reason. I miss the BG2 multi party banters . . . and I could go on for pages. I think the proposed changes are backed by plenty of reason for the dislike.

Likewise, I want the combat in D&D game to feel like D&D combat is the "feeling" and the elimination of the homebrew is the solution.

I'm glad we agree that things can be changed via feedback but I am less certain than you are that we are able to divine their core design philosophy.

Quote
those most strongly in favor of 5e, we know the system the best, clearly our opinion is the most important . . .


Yeah that's a straw man and pretty badly draw caricature. It's really asking that game provide what it's offering on the tin. It's labeled as D&D, it's face of D&D and I want it to inspire a new generation of D&D games. And I can do so if its not representing the ruleset accurately.

Quote
The problem with the survey is the problem I keep repeating, over and over again. The forum has a very clear and obvious sampling bias.


I get the sense you don't understand why that statement is unpersuasive -- it's trivially true. And problematic in others ways. Of course you have sampling bias on any forum -- that much is obvious. But how is biased? It's biased because you only sample the most dedicated fans of the genre. The question then becomes whether or not that is bad group to poll. Clearly you think it is but I really don't -- those fans understand the genre best and they will do the best job of spreading the word about the finished product.

On the popularity of the rulese t-- Forbes tells me that WotC sales grew by 53 percent last year. And this is to say nothing of the revenues coming from the popularity of the youtube and netflix series. I think Larian is smart to try and ride that wave of enthusiasm. And "the unexpected bump in sales numbers" that Larian reported is the same thing that other devs have experienced. Beamdog's servers crashed and crashed again for months because they were so unprepared for the number of downloads (sadly, the first of a set of mistakes) The second set of mistakes was not understanding how popular the BG EEs were with non gamers. The graphics wouldn't work on integrated intel video cards this despite the fact vanilla version did. Their beta testers all had gaming machines and the devs lost months of sales rewriting program to accommodate crappy laptops. The lesson -- non gamers will buy it because of the D&D and BG labels. It's why I'm here. Hell, I haven't played the Witcher which I think in enough to get me excluded from the gamer club.

There was reason so many devs made a bid for rights to make BG3.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Also, count me allergic to elitist appeals like "people don't know what they want". If you decided to come here and share your opinion it's because you have one and that goes for both the l33t and the hoi polloi. *Beams with pleb pride*.


Originally Posted by Sharp

The people who I have seen making this argument so far on this forum are those most strongly in favor of 5e, "we know the system the best, clearly our opinion is the most important, random purchaser will buy the game anyhow - A few, unnamed 5e purists." Glad you are not in that boat, but best to make sure.

I'm actually more or less in that field and let me tell you: it has nothing to do with being a "5th edition purist" or not. In fact, perfect adherence with the rules of the 5th edition are quite possibly on the of the topics I discussed about the least.

It's just a matter of fact across all genres and styles: the general, casual audience has nothing more than casual expectations.
Give them a neat package, production vaue with enough polish, and they will never question the minute details of what you are selling them, if not months later in hindsight.

Of course, you two are purposefully putting it in the most unlikable way, as if being "causal" about something was some sort of shame or mark of infamy, but that's disingenuous, because it's meant to be a generic consideration, not a qualitative judgement.
I don't really blame people who aren't that much into a topic for not being able to make distinctions on nuance, but that doesn't make that nuance meaningless.

I mean, I can't understand shit about motors, I don't see why MY opinion about what's the best motorcycle on the market and what feature it should offer should be valued above the one of an expert in that field.

EDIT- Oh well, look at that, I didn't even remember we basically had this very same topic discussed in the first page of this same thread. So, there's that too.


You seem to agree on the point that dedicated fans of the genre are a better source of feedback than casual audience.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Of course you have sampling bias on any forum -- that much is obvious. But how is biased? It's biased because you only sample the most dedicated fans of the genre. The question then becomes whether or not that is bad group to poll. Clearly you think it is but I really don't -- those fans understand the genre best and they will do the best job of spreading the word about the finished product.


Originally Posted by Tuco
It's just a matter of fact across all genres and styles: the general, casual audience has nothing more than casual expectations.
Give them a neat package, production vaue with enough polish, and they will never question the minute details of what you are selling them, if not months later in hindsight.

Of course, you two are purposefully putting it in the most unlikable way, as if being "causal" about something was some sort of shame or mark of infamy, but that's disingenuous, because it's meant to be a generic consideration, not a qualitative judgement.
I don't really blame people who aren't that much into a topic for not being able to make distinctions on nuance, but that doesn't make that nuance meaningless.

I mean, I can't understand shit about motors, I don't see why MY opinion about what's the best motorcycle on the market and what feature it should offer should be valued above the one of an expert in that field.

EDIT- Oh well, look at that, I didn't even remember we basically had this very same topic discussed in the first page of this same thread. So, there's that too.


And I'd agree with that. Tuco gave a good example.

It's not useless to hear what "the masses" say - casual players can point towards certain problem areas perfectly well ("I'm not enjoying this part of the game" - maybe worth a look). But casual audience won't give you detailed feedback, won't try to carefully analyse the source of the problem and won't suggest (potentially) viable solutions. There's also the matter of "good enough". A casual player is likely to say "it's good as it is", while a veteran of the genre might go "yeah, it's good, but this and that part could be improved; game A used approach X and I think it could work in this game as well".
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
It's not useless to hear what "the masses" say - casual players can point towards certain problem areas perfectly well ("I'm not enjoying this part of the game" - maybe worth a look). But casual audience won't give you detailed feedback, won't try to carefully analyse the source of the problem and won't suggest (potentially) viable solutions.

It's the good old principle "Your audience is *generally* great at spotting where there's a problem in your product AND absolutely terrible at suggesting what exactly is and what's a practical, viable solution".

A perfect example is something both of us already discussed: the awkwardness of the MC during dialogues.It's a problem that exist and a lot of people are pointing at, but what's often the suggested solution?
"The MC dialogues should be fully voiced, acted and directed like in a Hollywood movie/Naughty Dog triple A linear game".
Yeah, no shit that would improve things massively. It would also cost a bazillion dollars with all the permutations required.

Which is why we went and discussed how you can keep a silent character and make it far less awkward instead.




Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
It's not useless to hear what "the masses" say - casual players can point towards certain problem areas perfectly well ("I'm not enjoying this part of the game" - maybe worth a look). But casual audience won't give you detailed feedback, won't try to carefully analyse the source of the problem and won't suggest (potentially) viable solutions.

It's the good old principle "Your audience is *generally* great at spotting where there's a problem in your product AND absolutely terrible at suggesting what exactly is and what's a practical, viable solution".

A perfect example is something both of us already discussed: the awkwardness of the MC during dialogues.It's a problem that exist and a lot of people are pointing at, but what's often the suggested solution?
"The MC dialogues should be fully voiced, acted and directed like in a Hollywood movie/Naughty Dog triple A linear game".
Yeah, no shit that would improve things massively. It would also cost a bazillion dollars with all the permutations required.

Which is why we went and discussed how you can keep a silent character and make it far less awkward instead.


Yeah, exactly. I even had the quote in mind as I wrote my post. I generally consider it a very wise principle, although it is also where I'd make the distinction between "casual" and "veteran/dedicated" audience, as you described.
Originally Posted by Tuco

I'm actually more or less in that field and let me tell you: it has nothing to do with being a "5th edition purist" or not. In fact, perfect adherence with the rules of the 5th edition are quite possibly on the of the topics I discussed about the least.

It's just a matter of fact across all genres and styles: the general, casual audience has nothing more than casual expectations.
Give them a neat package, production vaue with enough polish, and they will never question the minute details of what you are selling them, if not months later in hindsight.

Of course, you two are purposefully putting it in the most unlikable way, as if being "causal" about something was some sort of shame or mark of infamy, but that's disingenuous, because it's meant to be a generic consideration, not a qualitative judgement.
I don't really blame people who aren't that much into a topic for not being able to make distinctions on nuance, but that doesn't make that nuance meaningless.

I mean, I can't understand shit about motors, I don't see why MY opinion about what's the best motorcycle on the market and what feature it should offer should be valued above the one of an expert in that field.

EDIT- Oh well, look at that, I didn't even remember we basically had this very same topic discussed in the first page of this same thread. So, there's that too.

I have, in the past, held this view. Its what I call the, "expert argument." You assume that you (or someone else) is an expert on a particular topic, then because you (or they) are an expert, you assert that clearly the weight of expertise makes your opinion more valuable. To quote myself when I made this argument, "you would not go to a guy on the street for medical advice, you would want to speak to a specialist." This begs 2 important questions, the first is how do you know you are an expert? The second is, does the expert argument hold up under all scrutiny.

So, to address the first question. Have you made any games? How many years in game development do you have? When did you study? Also, while you are at it, define what metric you think is applicable for expertise here and explain why we should use that one. I can tell you with certainty, many of the people at Larian have made games before and they do have some time in game development. They also studied it and I am sure some of them have a background in D&D as well. They are, almost without a doubt, experts. Does that mean they get to make the expert argument and dismiss your feedback? Does this mean that your feedback has no value?

Now, to address the 2nd argument of, "does it matter?" In some cases, I would say yes. Evaluating when though is difficult, subjective and would take more time than I care to dedicate to this post. In many other cases though, I would say the answer is no. A mantra I personally live by is, "if an argument cannot stand on its own 2 legs I do not care who makes it, be it Stephen Hawking or the guy on the street." If the reasons given for taking a path is good and elucidated well, then it does not matter who said them, all that matters is the argument itself.

When I made this argument, it was on a topic which I do consider myself an expert on and I had written a fair amount of material on, with a large body of evidence to back it up. It was still probably a mistake to do so, because, as I said in the above paragraph, a good argument is able to stand on its merit alone.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Yeah that's a straw man and pretty badly draw caricature. It's really asking that game provide what it's offering on the tin. It's labeled as D&D, it's face of D&D and I want it to inspire a new generation of D&D games. And I can do so if its not representing the ruleset accurately.

Its not a straw man because, I never wanted you to, "attack it" to begin with, I was just explaining why I was asking (more to determine whether or not its an argument I should engage with). There are actually people making this argument on the forums and I am more or less paraphrasing them, but I consider it bad form to demean others, so I am not giving their names.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Well said but problematic. A. I'm not sure how you were able to divine this criteria [...]

I'm glad we agree that things can be changed via feedback but I am less certain than you are that we are able to divine their core design philosophy.

I was able to "divine this criteria" because many developers in the past have said that this is the type of feedback they find valuable, both in blog posts and to me personally. I made the assumption that if this is something which is true for many of the developers that I am aware of, it is likely true for most of them. I cannot prove whether this assumption is true or not, but there are good reasons to take this, "leap of faith," and for now I will do so. If you like, I can find some of those articles and link them to you to read.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit


and B. I think you are ignoring or dismissing the many reasons given for the changes to the mechanics. Reasons like "I think this game plays more like DOS than BG2" is a reason for a 6 person party. I want to use a buffer cleric and melee cleric and still have room for a thief, mage and fighter is a reason. I miss the BG2 multi party banters . . . and I could go on for pages. I think the proposed changes are backed by plenty of reason for the dislike.

Likewise, I want the combat in D&D game to feel like D&D combat is the "feeling" and the elimination of the homebrew is the solution.

Reasons, "why I think the party limit should be 6 and not 4," is not entirely the same as, "reasons why I dislike the current party size," although there is some overlap between both. If you like, I can provide examples of why this is the case, but I think you are able to understand this without me illustrating it.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

I get the sense you don't understand why that statement is unpersuasive -- it's trivially true. And problematic in others ways. Of course you have sampling bias on any forum -- that much is obvious. But how is biased? It's biased because you only sample the most dedicated fans of the genre. The question then becomes whether or not that is bad group to poll. Clearly you think it is but I really don't -- those fans understand the genre best and they will do the best job of spreading the word about the finished product.


The, "expert argument." See my above post about it. In addition, lets say you were to make a game for experts of the genre. People who know the ins and outs of every PC RPG and the D&D system. If this is your target audience, they have markedly different expectations than that of the general public and there are a LOT of things they likely want, which the general public does not. If you made a game to appeal to experts, it would not be played by the general public, because the learning curve would be too steep and the game would likely be very unforgiving. I am not saying it would be a bad thing to make a game for experts, but if you do so, you do so knowing that you are severely limiting the pool of people for which the game is appealing to.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit


On the popularity of the rulese t-- Forbes tells me that WotC sales grew by 53 percent last year. And this is to say nothing of the revenues coming from the popularity of the youtube and netflix series. I think Larian is smart to try and ride that wave of enthusiasm. And "the unexpected bump in sales numbers" that Larian reported is the same thing that other devs have experienced. Beamdog's servers crashed and crashed again for months because they were so unprepared for the number of downloads (sadly, the first of a set of mistakes) The second set of mistakes was not understanding how popular the BG EEs were with non gamers. The graphics wouldn't work on integrated intel video cards this despite the fact vanilla version did. Their beta testers all had gaming machines and the devs lost months of sales rewriting program to accommodate crappy laptops. The lesson -- non gamers will buy it because of the D&D and BG labels. It's why I'm here. Hell, I haven't played the Witcher which I think in enough to get me excluded from the gamer club.

My point was that, tabletop gaming as a whole is a niche genre. Take a sample of 1000 people on the street. Ask them if they play any PC or console games. Then ask them if they play any tabletop games. Then, if you like, ask more in depth questions like if they can name the games, what are their favorite games and to name some characters. You will find in doing so, that gaming has a much bigger audience than tabletop.

Yeah, cool, WoTC grew 53%, its still tiny in comparison to the gaming market. I can also bet you that the bump in sales was anything but "unexpected." They spent a lot of money on advertising the game during early access. It was for a time, the banner on the front page of steam. Being featured in the release of a new flagship apple product is likely also not cheap. I was completely unaware that they were demoed at apple, I do not watch apple presentations, but a friend of mine, who does not play games at all, neither tabletop nor pc games and had no knowledge of either told me he was excited for Baldur's Gate 3 because he saw it at an apple presentation. Widescale marketing like that, has a much bigger impact than whether or not a game happens to be from a popular tabletop franchise.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

There was reason so many devs made a bid for rights to make BG3.

If you think about it, there actually were not many devs who made a bid for it. There were 3 or 4 companies including Larian, Obsidian and Beamdog. Bethesda did not make a bid for it and if they did, you can bet they would have got the rights to make it. Nor did Bioware and they were the ones that made BG 1 and 2 to begin with. The companies that made a bid to make BG 3 were companies which had other reasons to want to make a sequel to BG aside from sales, they were companies which are heavily invested into making RPGs and likely have people passionate about those games to begin with.

When I see another big post by Sharp...


[Linked Image]
''Experts' are good for some things in EA, but isn't the sole game audience to be listened to. The mistake I see in this thread is: I am an expert in this genre and therefore my opinion should count more than anyone else. Games need a variety of audiences of different abilities to work well, without diluting the spirit of the experience, and in some instances non-experts can be actually better for feedback. "I'm struggling to understand this", or "why is this like this?" is often better feedback than "I don't like this because it's not how I like it", or "it's like this because it's how it's always been/should be." Games in EA need both, and both are just as valuable. And from a financial angle, it makes no sense just to cater to the hardcore. That's not how games sell.


Either way, gatekeeping is really not a good look.

Originally Posted by Sharp

I have, in the past, held this view. Its what I call the, "expert argument." You assume that you (or someone else) is an expert on a particular topic, then because you (or they) are an expert, you assert that clearly the weight of expertise makes your opinion more valuable.

Well, yes, that's EXACTLY the claim. Except the part about claiming I'd be the expert.
Even if, let's be honest here, I totally am.

And no, I didn't make videogames, but I am familiar with software development. I was even my path of study at some point, even I ended up quitting and moving in a completely different direction in life (I manage a boxing gym, imagine that. Currently closed for lockdown because of COVID-19, too. Fuck that).
Then again back to my example most expert about motors didn't engineer one and doctors didn't genetically engineer bodies from the ground up either; in the same way most critics in most fields aren't expert practitioners on the that matter.

But that's not the point. Is it? I never claimed that my credibility (or the one of any other "game expert" on a studio or forum) should come from an authoritative resume, as much as from the reasonability and specificity of the suggestions I brought so far.

And yes, expertise (or if you actually want to be that fastidious about it, let's call it INTIMATE FAMILIARITY WITH A TOPIC) totally DOES matter.

Because if you have no clue of what it's technically feasible, nor you can mention a broad range of examples that addressed a given issue in the past, what does your suggestion matters, exactly?

Is "We should totally have mounted combat and be able to hire armies like in Mount & Blade" a pertinent suggestion, when it comes to the type of game BG3 is trying to be?
Is "Well, I don't think this is too bad. I know no games that did it better" when there are dozens THAT valuable as an opinion?

Then again, "the opinion of experts matters" and "Whatever any expert suggests should be automatically held as a Gospel" are two very different things, aren't they? Especially since experts have conflicting opinions about a given topic all the times.
Saying that competent and well argued opinions should have certain weight and claiming that unless you have a life-long list of achievements in a field to have right to suggest something seem very different things to me.
Because the latter is what you are attempting to argue for rhetorical points, while the former was my suggestion all along.

Dismissive handwaving as "Oh, well, the experts are just a few, while most of our audience doesn't know shit and is happy anyway" doesn't strike me as that much of an argument in favor of lousy mechanics, and... Is it really any LESS condescending that the alleged crime of "gatekeeping", anyway?


Originally Posted by Tuco

Well, yes, that's EXACTLY the claim. Expect the part about claiming I'd be the expert.
Even if, let's be honest here, I totally am.

And no, I didn't make videogames, but I am familiar with software development. I was even my path of study at some point, even I ended up quitting moving in a completely different direction in life (I manage a boxing gym, imagine that. Currently closed for lockdown because of COVID-19, too. Fuck that).
Then again back to my example most expert about motors didn't engineer one and doctors didn't genetically engineer bodies from the ground up either; in the same way most critics in most fields aren't expert practitioners on the that matter.

But that's not the point. Is it? I never claimed that my credibility (or the one of any other "game expert" on a studio or forum) should come from an authoritative resume, as much as from the reasonability and specificity of the suggestions I brought so far.

And yes, expertise (or if you actually want to be that fastidious about it, let's call it INTIMATE FAMILIARITY WITH A TOPIC) totally DOES matter.

Because if you have no clue of what it's technically feasible, nor you can mention a broad range of examples that addressed a given issue in the past, what does your suggestion matters, exactly?

Is "We should totally have mounted combat and be able to hire armies like in Mount & Blade" a pertinent suggestion, when it comes to the type of game BG3 is trying to be?
Is "Well, I don't think this is too bad. I know no games that did it better" when there are dozens THAT valuable as an opinions?

But do you have expertise though? There is a big difference between studying a topic and being an enthusiast of it. You could play BG 3 for 1,000 hours and never think much about it, you could also play it for 10 hours with a notepad and pen and write down lots of minutiae, noticing things 99.99% of players don't and be an expert on it. My point being, usually if someone is an "expert" on something, they have some body of work they can show which proves their expertise. Do you have a body of work to show this expertise to me?

Originally Posted by Tuco

Then again, "the opinion of experts matters" and "Whatever any expert suggests should be automatically held as a Gospel" are two very different things, aren't they? Especially since experts have conflicting opinions about a given topic all the times.

Saying that competent and well argued opinions should have certain weight and claiming that unless you have a life-long list of achievements in a field to have right to suggest something seem very different things to me.

And this was something I also said. "What matters far more is whether a piece of feedback is good or not, rather than who said it." If a casual player comes here and provides some good piece of feedback, does it matter that they are a casual player? No, what matters is that there feedback is good.

There is a cavaet there that, to an untrained eye, how do you know the quality of the feedback on sight. If someone came to me with 2 papers written on gene folding and one was complete garbage but the other was a legitimate paper, if the garbage 1 was sufficiently well faked, I would not be able to tell the 2 apart because I am not an expert on it. This is why you do go to and trust experts, because we don't have the time to study everything and become experts on all topics ourselves and thus we need to put some faith into someone else. When it comes to feedback about the EA however, the situation is different. There are very clearly some experts who are involved and are (hopefully) reading the topic. Those experts, are the people making the game. They can (hopefully) tell the difference between good feedback and bad feedback, using whatever criteria they have to determine what good and bad feedback is.

Originally Posted by yellowsapphire88
''Experts' are good for some things in EA, but isn't the sole game audience to be listened to. The mistake I see in this thread is: I am an expert in this genre and therefore my opinion should count more than anyone else. Games need a variety of audiences of different abilities to work well, without diluting the spirit of the experience, and in some instances non-experts can be actually better for feedback. "I'm struggling to understand this", or "why is this like this?" is often better feedback than "I don't like this because it's not how I like it", or "it's like this because it's how it's always been/should be." Games in EA need both, and both are just as valuable. And from a financial angle, it makes no sense just to cater to the hardcore. That's not how games sell.

I don't think it is bad if a game is made and advertised entirely towards a hardcore audience. There are some niche games like this and its perfectly fine for them to do so and I am sure the developers of those games are aware that their games have a much smaller appeal as a result of this, but so long as both them (and their audience) is happy with what they are getting, everything is going just fine. Roguelikes are an easy example of this. BG 3 has not marketed itself as being that game though, its trying to have broad market appeal. This means that, as you said, it needs to appeal to a variety of different player types. These player types enjoy different things and in some cases there is a conflict between these player types over what they enjoy. Magic: The Gathering has a good article on what they see as the different player types for their game over here, I am sure, without thinking much, it becomes obvious where the different conflict between these types arises.
I'd say anyone who takes the time to actually read what was written before here, and take the time to be civil to another poster here, is helping already. We actually need people who can use this discourse not for the showoff, but for a common cause we all share - we'd like to see a great game made and are ready to contribute some thought to that.

@Sharp
Quote
If you made a game to appeal to experts, it would not be played by the general public, because the learning curve would be too steep and the game would likely be very unforgiving. I am not saying it would be a bad thing to make a game for experts, but if you do so, you do so knowing that you are severely limiting the pool of people for which the game is appealing to.


Maybe it's just me, but I'd say BG 1 and 2 actually were good enough to instill the desire in the player. To become experts, to understand "how it all works".

I think it worked because back then, there were not so many game mechanic systems around. And people's capability to learn new stuff wasn't overstressed.

While right now we have so gaming mechanics around, all these editions, versions, half-cooked patchwork (sometimes, no doubt, hitting the vein).

So right now I'm just waiting for the poll system to get implemented on this forum, and would really glad for a coherent, thoroughly thought out set of questions to the auditory.

First of all, we need to set apart what can be modded (Larian would count on us making the specific mod to everyone's tastes, as they (S. Vincke) say);

And prepare the set of questions for what actually can be changed at this time in the development of the game (they probably wouldn't be happy getting new voiced dialogs/quests rewritten/whathaveyou).
Would be nice to concentrate the efforts knowing they won't be wasted. And it works both ways - for the developers and the players here.
Originally Posted by Sharp

But do you have expertise though? There is a big difference between studying a topic and being an enthusiast of it. You could play BG 3 for 1,000 hours and never think much about it, you could also play it for 10 hours with a notepad and pen and write down lots of minutiae, noticing things 99.99% of players don't and be an expert on it. My point being, usually if someone is an "expert" on something, they have some body of work they can show which proves their expertise. Do you have a body of work to show this expertise to me?

Well, you are being a little disingenuous here, aren't you?
If what you want is a list of games I've worked on, no I can't show that "body of work" to you.
If what you want is proof that I have intimate familiarity with most of the mechanics and features I'm discussing, well, I've 20+ years of forum dwelling across dozen of communities,. With especial focus on this very genre, too.
Do you want to start some extensive stalking to get the pulse of my credential, though?
Well, creepiness of that thought aside, you could start with my post history on this very forum. Point me posts where I make unreasonable suggestions without an eye to their feasibility or arguments about why they would be for the better and we can talk about something specific, rather than this vague "Can you leverage the Appeal at authority fallacy in some way?".

Quote
And this was something I also said. "What matters far more is whether a piece of feedback is good or not, rather than who said it." If a casual player comes here and provides some good piece of feedback, does it matter that they are a casual player? No, what matters is that there feedback is good.

But that's precisely the point where this whole digression started, isn't it?
If someone gains familiarity with the genre, thinks about the mechanics in depth and then "comes to this forum to give feedback" then that someone is implicitly moving out of the "casual audience" category, isn't he? Which doesn't make him automatically an "expert" yet, but let's put this aside.

Wasn't the attempted argument precisely that people who post opinions on forum don't matter, because they are just a niche and the casual audience doesn't give a shit?
These two takes seem to be at odd with each other.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by kanisatha
@Abits, based on your own post, it is also the case that the things you would like to see changed or "fixed" in the game are also things that don't have a consensus around them. So then perhaps the best course for Larian is to indeed ignore all the criticisms and feedback and keep things as is. For anyone (not singling you out here) to say "my feedback is meaningful and should be addressed, but other people's feedback which I disagree with should be ignored" would be disingenuous.

Yeah but I never said my issues are more important. Moreover, I explained in my big "Larian's biggest oversight" post that I think it's not issues per se, but a design philosophy I strongly disagree with, but perhaps there are people who find appealing (and if you read the comments. All I can do is give my feedback and hope Larian will consider it. And like I said, again, from here on out it's a matter of how much Larian is willing to do things differently. But I don't think it is a matter of completely ignoring me because they don't find my comment valuable.

I did say not you personally, didn't I? smile

My point simply is that there really isn't any criticism that can be labeled a consensus. And furthermore, even when there is something in the game about which there is a lot of criticism, people in this forum are very often in sharp disagreement with each other about how that issue should be resolved or fixed. And then on top of all that, as much as this forum is very animated right now, the number of individual regular posters here is a very tiny and non-representative fraction of the total number of people playing the EA or who are interested in this game. So my expectation is that Larian is taking all of these factors into consideration, meaning they are hearing all of this criticism but are: (a) not sure which ones they should respond to versus which ones they should stick with their current vision, and (b) of the ones they accept as needing to be changed/fixed, not sure which direction to take that change from among multiple options.

Things are very different for them with this game relative to the D:OS games. In the D:OS games, they were dealing with games that were entirely their own games/IP, games that were not part of a very beloved and cherished franchise, and also games not based on a PnP game very familiar to and loved by many people. So making changes and fixes to those games during EA based on player feedback was a much easier and very straightforward exercise. If a majority of EA feedback said X, do X. But that's not how you want to handle a game like BG3. With this game, Larian has to take into account how PnP D&D fans may react, how fans of the original BG games may react, how their own D:OS games fans may react, and even how WotC may react. They are significantly more constrained in how they can do things compared with their own D:OS games.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Sharp

But do you have expertise though? There is a big difference between studying a topic and being an enthusiast of it. You could play BG 3 for 1,000 hours and never think much about it, you could also play it for 10 hours with a notepad and pen and write down lots of minutiae, noticing things 99.99% of players don't and be an expert on it. My point being, usually if someone is an "expert" on something, they have some body of work they can show which proves their expertise. Do you have a body of work to show this expertise to me?

Well, you are being a little disingenuous here, aren't you?
If what you want is a list of games I've worked on, no I can't show that "body of work" to you.
If what you want is proof that I have intimate familiarity with most of the mechanics and features I'm discussing, well, I've 20+ years of forum dwelling across dozen of communities,. With especial focus on this very genre, too.
Do you want to start some extensive stalking to get the pulse of my credential, though?
Well, creepiness of that thought aside, you could start with my post history on this very forum. Point me posts where I make unreasonable suggestions without an eye to their feasibility or arguments about why they would be for the better and we can talk about something specific, rather than this vague "Can you leverage the Appeal at authority fallacy in some way?".

My point was and it more or less seems you agree, despite initially trying to argue otherwise, being an "expert," does not automatically make you right and that constructive discussion is what matters more. I am not actually at all interested in your personal life, my point was only that, your knowledge of games is likely no more specialized than many of the posters here, which means that if you are going to appeal to your, "expertise," then why shouldn't those other posters do the same? Or is it that maybe, just maybe, its not who says something, but the quality of what they are saying that is important.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Wasn't the attempted argument precisely that people who post opinions on forum don't matter, because they are just a niche and the casual audience doesn't give a shit?
These two takes seem to be at odd with each other.

At no point have I said that niche opinions should be ignored, at no point at all. I said that if a particular piece of feedback goes against the core design pillars the developers have for the game, it will probably be ignored. The hardcore fans of the game, the "experts," are still a very important part of the community and its vital that you keep them playing, because if you lose these people, you lose everyone else. But unless you are trying to make a very niche game (which Larian is not trying to do), you cannot make a game which only appeals to these people. This means that in some cases, you need to deviate from what those core fans want. There is the saying, you can please a few people, all of the time, some of the people, most of the time and all of the people, only some of the time. If you are choosing to appeal to a wider group, that means that most people are going to be dissatisfied with something about the game.

Originally Posted by Ellenhard
I'd say anyone who takes the time to actually read what was written before here, and take the time to be civil to another poster here, is helping already. We actually need people who can use this discourse not for the showoff, but for a common cause we all share - we'd like to see a great game made and are ready to contribute some thought to that.


I agree here.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say BG 1 and 2 actually were good enough to instill the desire in the player. To become experts, to understand "how it all works".

I think it worked because back then, there were not so many game mechanic systems around. And people's capability to learn new stuff wasn't overstressed.

While right now we have so gaming mechanics around, all these editions, versions, half-cooked patchwork (sometimes, no doubt, hitting the vein).

So right now I'm just waiting for the poll system to get implemented on this forum, and would really glad for a coherent, thoroughly thought out set of questions to the auditory.

First of all, we need to set apart what can be modded (Larian would count on us making the specific mod to everyone's tastes, as they (S. Vincke) say);

And prepare the set of questions for what actually can be changed at this time in the development of the game (they probably wouldn't be happy getting new voiced dialogs/quests rewritten/whathaveyou).
Would be nice to concentrate the efforts knowing they won't be wasted. And it works both ways - for the developers and the players here.

I would argue that it had more to do with the time, than it had to do with the games themselves. At the time, for the most part, the only people playing video games were the hardcore enthusiasts. Gaming was not mainstream yet and was nowhere near the 4th largest entertainment market in the world. As a result of this, the audience was very different. Player expectations were different as well, players would not expect every character to be voice acted (I personally would rather only have important dialogue voice acted) and were fine with reading longer dialogues. Fans were also more accommodating to mechanics which today would cause a lot of mainstream disapproval. I am sure if Pathfinder: Kingmaker was released back then for example, people wouldn't have complained nearly as much about timers, but time has marched on and expectations have changed.

But yes, the most important thing to learn right now is what they will not budge on.
Originally Posted by Sharp

My point was and it more or less seems you agree, despite initially trying to argue otherwise, being an "expert," does not automatically make you righ

which means that if you are going to appeal to your, "expertise," then why shouldn't those other posters do the same

Well, and my point was that factual "expertise" (as "intimate familiarity with this type of games and a degree of understanding of how their systems work") DOES tend to make a difference in the quality of your arguments; it was never that presenting yourself as an "expert" upfront should give you a headstart or a free pass to argue complete bullshit.
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works. Usually this is solved by simply doing (conducting experiments in real time with all concerned bodies present) rather than arguing but that's not an option. Truth is you can argue till your ego's go blue in the face, but projecting results in a vaccum without accounting all variables is pointless. The most you can do is provide a point and hope Larian rolls for insight.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works.

Who's this "you" you're referring to?
Because I have no idea.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works.

Who's this "you" you're referring to?
Because I have no idea.


The "you all" was referring to the individuals arguing about validity of "experts" and how to credit or discredit any given point.
Yeah, but your assumption that "we all" value the source above the content seems to be completely baseless.
That's the issue.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works. Usually this is solved by simply doing (conducting experiments in real time with all concerned bodies present) rather than arguing but that's not an option. Truth is you can argue till your ego's go blue in the face, but projecting results in a vaccum without accounting all variables is pointless. The most you can do is provide a point and hope Larian rolls for insight.


You realize a 'good point' is a point that's been qualified right? Which means it's inherently tied to a context which includes the source. While it doesn't necessarily subtract away from the truthiness of a thing, it does mean it may fit less into your context to which you're trying to apply the 'good point' to.

And the truth is that we do have in place formal rules of logic and other systems that make arguing/debating/discussing these things meaningful/fruitful and depending on the subject matter doesn't necessarily require you to run an experiment (usually because it's already been validated by the processes outlined previously.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Yeah, but your assumption that "we all" value the source above the content seems to be completely baseless.
That's the issue.


Umm how exactly is it baseless? My statement was quite general and your response that's baseless comes from what? Are you saying my statement is false? Or are you saying you personally have not shifted the value of any given feedback statement for one reason or another that excludes the functionality of said statement in the closed vaccum of the game itself? Which would then make you not applicable to my original statement. Is that what you are saying?
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works. Usually this is solved by simply doing (conducting experiments in real time with all concerned bodies present) rather than arguing but that's not an option. Truth is you can argue till your ego's go blue in the face, but projecting results in a vaccum without accounting all variables is pointless. The most you can do is provide a point and hope Larian rolls for insight.


You realize a 'good point' is a point that's been qualified right? Which means it's inherently tied to a context which includes the source. While it doesn't necessarily subtract away from the truthiness of a thing, it does mean it may fit less into your context to which you're trying to apply the 'good point' to.

And the truth is that we do have in place formal rules of logic and other systems that make arguing/debating/discussing these things meaningful/fruitful and depending on the subject matter doesn't necessarily require you to run an experiment (usually because it's already been validated by the processes outlined previously.


Hmm I should define "good" to be consistant? That's fair. My definition of good is a hypothesis that based on a contextual setting with the malleable point"can it work" can be tested. It's loose. You are correct on this. I promote real time testing because of this in fact. The meaning comes from the testing in real time not the past results. In order to develop a creative break through you have to do things yourself. Using templates is fine, but they never define what you do. To discover something you must be open to the fact that nothing is concrete. You cannot do that if the data is thrown out before at least the screening phase of testing because the source is something you don't like or worse something that is beneath you. Which is exactly what most ego's demand. I prefer a more humble hands on approach to prevent loss of creativity and stop lazy "he said she said" arguments that always pop up when reliance on old data takes precedence over live data testing. Things are easier now so it's easy to swing past little things, but those little things could be what makes the difference. This of course is strictly for the discussion of Baldurs gate 3.

So as you already know this cannot happen which by default means the limit is post your point. Its all Larian after that.
Tuco is right, Sharp and few others have basically tripped themselves into arguing about a strawman they imagined - about Tucos "expertise" - because it seems like an easy hanging fruit to pick.
All the while they claim that strawmaned interpretation of "Tucos expertise" is not important and each suggestion and idea should be considered on their own merit - which they fail to do and instead argue about a strawmaned importance of "expertise".

Which Tuco repeatedly explained isnt the case at all, as he was only referring to familiarity, experience with and general knowledge about this kind of systems and games. But the imagined low hanging fruit of criticizing "expertise" in a vacuum - twisted into a strawman argument - is just too satisfying to let go.


Also, the general consensus on anything here does not matter at all. Its not a requirement or a threshold that guarantees the studio will implement anything. False self victimization and "crying on forums" and throwing "hissy fits" is a much surer bet. Development of DoS2 is a glaring proof of that. Remains to be seen if the studio will fall for that again and how much.

The notion of consensus on its own is meaningless, since you can theoretically get some kind of consensus the game should be turned into a fist person shooter. You just need enough of bot accounts, or similar nonsensical "online mob" petitions.

What the devs should do is consider what is better for the game and leverage that against realistic business possibilities.

The End.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai


Hmm I should define "good" to be consistant? That's fair. My definition of good is a hypothesis that based on a contextual setting with the malleable point"can it work" can be tested. It's loose. You are correct on this. I promote real time testing because of this in fact. The meaning comes from the testing in real time not the past results. In order to develop a creative break through you have to do things yourself. Using templates is fine, but they never define what you do. To discover something you must be open to the fact that nothing is concrete. You cannot do that if the data is thrown out before at least the screening phase of testing because the source is something you don't like or worse something that is beneath you. Which is exactly what most ego's demand. I prefer a more humble hands on approach to prevent loss of creativity and stop lazy "he said she said" arguments that always pop up when reliance on old data takes precedence over live data testing. Things are easier now so it's easy to swing past little things, but those little things could be what makes the difference. This of course is strictly for the discussion of Baldurs gate 3.

So as you already know this cannot happen which by default means the limit is post your point. Its all Larian after that.


No, I mean that the definition of a 'good point' is tied to the context from which it was created from. For example, if we agree that Larian's surfaces are too much and say it is a good point then it should be understood that we, of a certain demographic, hold this as a truth. But if you were to apply that point to someone else who enjoys surfaces then it would be blatantly false.

Also, I mean to say that testing can be done in a myriad of ways including hypotheticals, synthetics, real-time, thought experiments or whatever else but the conclusions you derive from that need to be carefully measured if you want actual applicable results.

That being said though, the things that are available to this forum can easily chop down most arguments without Larian because while they're related to BG3 they are first and foremost going to be butchered down by logic before even reaching the point where you need to 'test' with Larian's data set or context.
Unfortunately, I won't have time for a longer reply for until later but @Tuco this might help in your conversation with @Sharp smile

Sharp is a smart guy and is pretty good at rhetoric. I'd guess he's even had classes on rhetoric -- he is alternating between an appeal to the people and an appeal to authority. The trap he is laying -- and one you seem to believe I walked into -- is get you to declared an expert and then be tarred with unpleasant aspects of expertise. Snobbishness, elitist attitudes and the like.

Google snob appeal / mob appeal / Ad Populum

His larger point is that the forum is a type of irrelevant expertise and that game developers have the relevant expertise. So to argue for expertise an abstract sense actually bolsters his point -- for him we are like patients and the devs the doctors. Our feedback is valuable when we are describing our symptoms but not when we are offering solutions.

The flaw in the argument is inherent denigration of the opinions of the forum: that if devs listened to our proposed solutions then we would produce a game that only appealed to a small niche. In this vision we become the Homer Simpson who tells the car maker how to make something that only Homer would want to drive. (if anyone remembers that ancient episode)

But the argument is counterfactual -- BG was a D&D nerds game. It adhered to 2nd ed ruleset closer than any other video game. In BG2 they dove even deeper into the rules implementing optional rules like class "kits" (always hated that term). So BG2 was actually a Homer car that was wildly successful.

And @Elenhard nailed it --
Quote

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say BG 1 and 2 actually were good enough to instill the desire in the player. To become experts, to understand "how it all works".


Exactly. I really think BG3 will become a better a game if our solutions are listened to -- the forums have the relevant expertise and the devs can and should learn from us. As Bioware did when it was good company.

@Sharp, thanks for the detailed reply -- more later
Originally Posted by Surface R



Also, the general consensus on anything here does not matter at all. Its not a requirement or a threshold that guarantees the studio will implement anything. False self victimization and "crying on forums" and throwing "hissy fits" is a much surer bet. Development of DoS2 is a glaring proof of that. Remains to be seen if the studio will fall for that again and how much.

The notion of consensus on its own is meaningless, since you can theoretically get some kind of consensus the game should be turned into a fist person shooter. You just need enough of bot accounts, or similar nonsensical "online mob" petitions.

What the devs should do is consider what is better for the game and leverage that against realistic business possibilities.

The End.


Well now, should I get a bucket so I can harvest Isaac's tears for all his hard work and list making?
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit


Exactly. I really think BG3 will become a better a game if our solutions are listened to -- the forums have the relevant expertise and the devs can and should learn from us. As Bioware did when it was good company.

@Sharp, thanks for the detailed reply -- more later



Better for who? That's the multi-million dollar question.

Expertise is only relevant if it can be applied to the correct context; none of you so far have ever figured out what the audience of BG3 is for and how to navigate that. I haven't seen one person actually break down the possibilities then list out what compromises can and cannot be made. Yet, you are all claiming that your expertise can fit the bill without further qualification.

It's really surprising because these questions are basic interview questions you would get when you apply for a technical position.

Do any of you really have the relevant expertise and have any of you actually gone through the rigors to show that you have that expertise? Doubt it.

They can certainly learn from us, but it's not really all that much because very few people here have empathy let alone a good grasp of logic.
@limz

Please tell me that you are not saying that a consensus has any and I do mean any hold on determining truth. Are you trying to say the opposite because then that would support my original statement. Clarify please.

Your last paragraph in your response to me is wrong. Fan vs Fan is still meaningless. You are trying to give yourself an unspoken title to screen out other people to "protec larian". Don't know if you did that on purpose or subconsciously. People are too easily swayed by loud noises and "white knights". Not saying you are one though but your "logic" sounds a lot like a hivemind and that is never going to lead to a better game.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
@limz

Please tell me that you are not saying that a consensus has any and I do mean any hold on determining truth. Are you trying to say the opposite because then that would support my original statement. Clarify please.

Your last paragraph is wrong. Fan vs Fan is still meaningless. You are trying to give yourself an unspoken title to screen out other people to "protec larian". Don't know if you did that on purpose or subconsciously. People are too easily swayed by loud noises and "white knights". Not saying you are one though but your "logic" sounds a lot like a hivemind and that is never going to lead to a better game.


It's not that hard to understand what I wrote, a truth about an aggregate applies to the aggregate not to the individual hence context. How fucking hard is that for you to understand? There is no such thing as a good point in a vacuum because it is inherently tied to a context due to having made a value judgment / qualifying it.

In short, your original statement is wrong as is your understanding of what I wrote.

Fan vs Fan isn't meaningless unless you're trying to take the conclusions of that and apply it to something that doesn't mesh. How hard is that for you to understand?

And you're pretty dense if you think that my logic is that of a hivemind, it's literally what every architect has to consider when given a project or any product owner, which is a criticism to both supporters and opponents of the current implementation.

So, please, tell me how my logic supports a 'hivemind' when I am telling you that almost no one has qualified and quantified in any serious manner?

I mean is it really this hard for you to read the interviews and figure out their constraints and do an analysis? Or is doing that analysis in depth considered a hivemind activity?
+1 to what Tuco and kanisatha said (more eloquently than I could).

I also think we are, to an extent, arguing over definitions. We're talking "experts" (I used "veterans" to avoid it, but it's still a bad term), but I'd say most of the time we mean (more or less) "players who have certain experience in the genre as well as are thoughtful and willing to analyse certain aspects of the game in a systematic, thorough manner". I think no one here is saying "so you've only played 10 games in your life? not an expert, GTFO of these forums, your opinion is irrelevant". It's, as other people here mentioned, about how well any given individual can construct an argument; how insightful the feedback is; how reasonable and well thought out the suggestions. The "expertise" will manifest itself through this. It's also not about making a game "for experts" that is only enjoyable by "experts"; I'm not sure how this was taken from anyone's post.

Moreover, I feel like at times we descend into thinking about this as a democracy. Or something someone can "win". Which it's not. What we're doing here is presenting Larian with our feedback and suggestions. Our feelings, thoughts and ideas on the game. It's up to Larian what to do about it. Of course, we can make our cases stronger either by making compelling arguments or by sheer numbers (reinforcing problem points), but we're not debating councilmen. Our only power is in persuasion attempts. Not that I consider debating useless, quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by Sharp
I don't think it is bad if a game is made and advertised entirely towards a hardcore audience. There are some niche games like this and its perfectly fine for them to do so and I am sure the developers of those games are aware that their games have a much smaller appeal as a result of this, but so long as both them (and their audience) is happy with what they are getting, everything is going just fine. Roguelikes are an easy example of this. BG 3 has not marketed itself as being that game though, its trying to have broad market appeal.


If we go by what type of game BG3 appears, yes, it has broad appeal and could be compared to modern BioWare (say Inquisition). Clearly there is an attempt at "mass market appeal" - a succesful one, from what I understand.

However, the game IS being marketed toward "niche" or very specific audience: it is a "main entry Baldur's Gate game" and a "D&D 5e game". They were pretty clear in marketing it as such, and therefore, in my opinion, it is fair to hold the game to being appealing not just to any RPG player, but specifically to these groups. And yes, Larian have made it quite difficult for themselves...

Originally Posted by Ellenhard
@Sharp
Quote
If you made a game to appeal to experts, it would not be played by the general public, because the learning curve would be too steep and the game would likely be very unforgiving. I am not saying it would be a bad thing to make a game for experts, but if you do so, you do so knowing that you are severely limiting the pool of people for which the game is appealing to.


Maybe it's just me, but I'd say BG 1 and 2 actually were good enough to instill the desire in the player. To become experts, to understand "how it all works".


The thing about BG1&2 is... you don't need to understand the systems to enjoy the games. I don't consider myself a hardcore player. To this day my understanding of all the 2AD&D systems is... incomplete at best. Yet it never stopped me from enjoying the games, and not because I had nothing else to play.
@Limz

Calm down. First of all by your definition of aggregate everything outside of a single dev making a game for himself/herself can be dismissed or misrepresented. Your use of aggregate is disingenuous and a smokescreen. Secondly their is always a good point because their is always a goal. Having value itself does not negate the existence of a point. The vaccum in question is Baldurs gate 3 and only Baldurs gate 3. Not an empty space entirely. You are off the walls on that. Thirdly you say your logic is not hiveminded but then immediately use a hiveminded example with the subject of architecture. You are contradicting your self and are trying to curse me out and huff and puff when I ask for clarification. I think you know you are wrong and its making you angry so I'm just putting this debate to rest. At least on my part. I've no interest in fighting or name calling. Believe what you want we are done. Have a nice day.
Keep it civil please chaps.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Sharp is a smart guy and is pretty good at rhetoric. I'd guess he's even had classes on rhetoric -- he is alternating between an appeal to the people and an appeal to authority. The trap he is laying -- and one you seem to believe I walked into -- is get you to declared an expert and then be tarred with unpleasant aspects of expertise. Snobbishness, elitist attitudes and the like.

Google snob appeal / mob appeal / Ad Populum

I haven't actually and I am not sure whether to take this as a compliment or an insult - my field of expertise is statistical modelling, not public relations in any way. This is why I made comments about biases. I am also not a fan of Ad Populum, just because something is more popular, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

The flaw in the argument is inherent denigration of the opinions of the forum: that if devs listened to our proposed solutions then we would produce a game that only appealed to a small niche. In this vision we become the Homer Simpson who tells the car maker how to make something that only Homer would want to drive. (if anyone remembers that ancient episode)

But the argument is counterfactual -- BG was a D&D nerds game. It adhered to 2nd ed ruleset closer than any other video game. In BG2 they dove even deeper into the rules implementing optional rules like class "kits" (always hated that term). So BG2 was actually a Homer car that was wildly successful.

And @Elenhard nailed it --
Quote

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say BG 1 and 2 actually were good enough to instill the desire in the player. To become experts, to understand "how it all works".



BG 1 and 2 were made in a different era, when the market was much smaller, much less saturated and the expectations of the player were different. At the time when BG 1 and 2 were released, most people playing PC games were us nerds. You could reasonably expect the people who are playing the game, to have some understanding of the ruleset. This is different to today, where I would argue that the average person playing PC games is not us nerds, it is far more of a mainstream hobby. There is another aspect of this as well, D&D itself has changed. Back when D&D was originally conceived, its roots were in war gaming. At the time of 2e, this was still present to some extent, with some of the rules like for example the different armor types being good against different damage types being present because of this. As a result of this, the audience for D&D itself was a more tactics driven audience. This has, for the most part changed. D&D now is marketed far more as a theater of the mind, with flashy effects taking center stage, with the main marketing of the brand being things like critical role. You can bet that the audience which enjoyed D&D in the 90s, is not the same audience as D&D today.

My point being, time goes on, things change. Forums are still largely visited by the same groups of people however, the newer communities in gaming prefer different mediums of communication.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit



Exactly. I really think BG3 will become a better a game if our solutions are listened to -- the forums have the relevant expertise and the devs can and should learn from us. As Bioware did when it was good company.


As I said in my very first post in response to you, better is subjective and it depends on the person giving feedback. Better for you does not necessarily mean better for someone else.



Originally Posted by Aishaddai

Calm down. First of all by your definition of aggregate everything outside of a single dev making a game for himself/herself can be dismissed or misrepresented.


Like I said, you have no understanding of what I am writing and are deliberately misrepresenting me that or you have a complete lack of understanding of basic logic. I stated that any truths derived from something is qualified by that something.

So, by my logic, any truths Larian would come across is first and foremost only applicable to their context and application to any other game or dev would need further qualification and quantification (if applicable). The same goes for people discussing this, and that any truths we arrive to will have to deal with the same scrutiny. Holy shit, not that hard is it?

Originally Posted by Aishaddai

Your use of aggregate is disingenuous and a smokescreen


This is rich coming from someone who doesn't understand the basic premise of my argument.

Originally Posted by Aishaddai

Secondly their is always a good point because their is always a goal.


It's almost as if you vaguely have enough comprehension of my argument, but miss the entire point. You're saying here that any good point has a goal. Assigning a GOAL to something inherently makes it biased and the truth of that point or rather the validity lies with that goal. Which is literally what I wrote to begin with, however, if you look at your original post you suggest and imply that it is a truth easily transferrable because all truths are the same.

Originally Posted by Aishaddai

Having value itself does not negate the existence of a point.


No one ever said that. Like I said, you fail to comprehend the basics of what I wrote even when I provided examples. I also never talked about a single 'point' but rather when you qualify something by amending it with 'good' which is also a value judgment.

Here's a link for you in case you have no idea what the terminology I am using means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment

Originally Posted by Aishaddai

Thirdly you say your logic is not hiveminded but then immediately use a hiveminded example with the subject of architecture.


Like I said, you have zero understanding of what's being written; you're considering whatever logic the fan boys of Larian have to a system of analysis derived from no one particularly entity or group of entities. Cool. Then I guess it must be difficult to run tests because all the parameters and variables are hiveminded. Awesome job there with that stretch of logic.

It's good that you're going to drop this because you aren't a serious contender for any discussion and brings me back to another point of mine: most feedback here is absolute garbage when it comes to depth but is great for breadth.
Quote
Expertise is only relevant if it can be applied to the correct context; none of you so far have ever figured out what the audience of BG3 is for and how to navigate that. I haven't seen one person actually break down the possibilities then list out what compromises can and cannot be made. Yet, you are all claiming that your expertise can fit the bill without further qualification.


That sweet sense of satisfaction gained from tearing down ones own strawmans is just too overpowering.

And also, you speak like an expert on the matter, haha.

Quote
As I said in my very first post in response to you, better is subjective and it depends on the person giving feedback. Better for you does not necessarily mean better for someone else.


Its all relative people, therefore nothing is better than anything else. lol.

Its all just a ... mush. Incomprehensible white noise. hahaha.

I have issued one warning to keep the tone civil. Don't let's take things further, eh?
To interject in the middle of a discussion
Originally Posted by Sharp
BG 1 and 2 were made in a different era, when the market was much smaller, much less saturated and the expectations of the player were different. At the time when BG 1 and 2 were released, most people playing PC games were us nerds. You could reasonably expect the people who are playing the game, to have some understanding of the ruleset. This is different to today, where I would argue that the average person playing PC games is not us nerds, it is far more of a mainstream hobby. There is another aspect of this as well, D&D itself has changed. Back when D&D was originally conceived, its roots were in war gaming. At the time of 2e, this was still present to some extent, with some of the rules like for example the different armor types being good against different damage types being present because of this. As a result of this, the audience for D&D itself was a more tactics driven audience. This has, for the most part changed. D&D now is marketed far more as a theater of the mind, with flashy effects taking center stage, with the main marketing of the brand being things like critical role. You can bet that the audience which enjoyed D&D in the 90s, is not the same audience as D&D today.

"D&D itself has changed" and become "far more of a mainstream hobby." Doesn't this imply that Larian, if they want to make a mainstream game, should follow D&D 5e rules? They should keep 5e purity because the rules of 5e have allowed it to become popular?

If D&D is more mainstream, then those who are arguing for BG3 to follow 5e rules are not "niche."
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
To interject in the middle of a discussion

"D&D itself has changed" and become "far more of a mainstream hobby." Doesn't this imply that Larian, if they want to make a mainstream game, should follow D&D 5e rules? They should keep 5e purity because the rules of 5e have allowed it to become popular?

If D&D is more mainstream, then those who are arguing for BG3 to follow 5e rules are not "niche."


My argument there was following on with the comment about forums. The more "mainstream" D&D player, the player that found D&D within the past 5-10 years, is not the type of person who is making arguments here. In fact (and I loathe generalizations, so please forgive me, but I will make a few here), they are likely the type of person who does enjoy flashy effects and not following the rules of D&D very closely. They are not playing the game because of the ruleset itself, rather they are using it as a springboard for their own creative license.

The feedback you see given on these forums, is not from these types of players, it is largely from the type of player who has been (as they will tell you) playing D&D for the past 20-30 years and has very deeply entrenched and "hardcore" views.
Originally Posted by Sharp
My argument there was following on with the comment about forums. The more "mainstream" D&D player, the player that found D&D within the past 5-10 years, is not the type of person who is making arguments here. In fact (and I loathe generalizations, so please forgive me, but I will make a few here), they are likely the type of person who does enjoy flashy effects and not following the rules of D&D very closely. The feedback you see given on these forums, is not from these types of players, it is largely from the type of player who has been (as they will tell you) playing D&D for the past 20-30 years and has very deeply entrenched and "hardcore" views.

Gotcha. I somewhat disagree with this. As a personal anecdote, I have only played tabletop 5e (and only half of BG1, played ~5 years ago).
More broadly, if you look at the results of the forums survey https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=712680
-88% of people who filled out the form played DOS1/2
-82% played DAO
-69% played BG1/2
-82% are familiar with the 5e rules
-65% played tabletop 5e.
If you assume that the survey sample represents those who post on the forum (not unreasonable), we see that more people are on this forum are here because they've played DOS1&2 or DAO versus BG1&2, and 35% (not an insignificant amount) have NOT played 5e. So posters on this forum are not overwhelmingly from BG1&2/old D&D purists. A majority, sure, but also take into account that these players, like me, may have only played BG1&2 in recent years after starting with 5e.

If you look at the answers of only those who are NOT familiar with 5e (assuming that these type of players are the "mainstream" audience Larian is looking for) https://i.imgur.com/KAcSU4N.png, they still dislike e.g., surface effects, increased HP, and stealthing as a bonus action available to everyone.

tl;dr: I don't agree with your assertion that most people on this forum have been playing D&D for 20-30 years. And even if they are, there are still common arguments between "d&d purists" and "mainstream players"
Originally Posted by Sharp

I haven't actually and I am not sure whether to take this as a compliment or an insult - my field of expertise is statistical modelling, not public relations in any way. This is why I made comments about biases. I am also not a fan of Ad Populum, just because something is more popular, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.


It was mean as a compliment. If it came across as anything else it was due to the fact that I took charisma as a dump stat wink

It was also a "I see what did you did there" combined with a "well done". I declared myself a pleb and you challenged that. As far as ad populum there is a variant in which an argument is dismissed because it is associated with a particular elite group of people. It's a particularly powerful technique because people are rarely willing to give up their (hard earned) status as experts in a matter. The more you put yourself forth as an authority, the deeper the hole gets. For someone who hasn't had a rhetoric class you've intuited the from perfectly. I think @uncle lester's chosen word of "veteran" is a good one but I think we've found our word -- nerd. Doesn't have unfortunate connotations of expert but makes the case well.

And this is where I see the form returning. Having agreed that BG2 was a nerd's game and was better for it I think you return to the "biased sample" by saying that any forum feedback is poisoned because forums are out of date.

Quote
BG 1 and 2 were made in a different era, when the market was much smaller, much less saturated and the expectations of the player were different. At the time when BG 1 and 2 were released, most people playing PC games were us nerds. You could reasonably expect the people who are playing the game, to have some understanding of the ruleset . . .

Forums are still largely visited by the same groups of people however, the newer communities in gaming prefer different mediums of communication . . . My point being, time goes on, things change.


Or, in brief, that assessment is out of date. Right? It's a way of dismissing the sense of the majority of the forum.

And it gets to the point of our disagreement -- I don't have strong opinions about how the X men movies should be made but I do their success has come, in part, because the directors have paid such close attention to the opinions of the comic book nerds. I really do think those nerds are as responsible for the success of movies I enjoyed as were the producers.

Quote

This is different to today, where I would argue that the average person playing PC games is not us nerds, it is far more of a mainstream hobby. There is another aspect of this as well, D&D itself has changed. Back when D&D was originally conceived, its roots were in war gaming. At the time of 2e, this was still present to some extent, with some of the rules like for example the different armor types being good against different damage types being present because of this.


I don't disagree with the theater of mind the mind characterization but I don't think it applies to the discussion -- I'm not critiquing the theatre of the mind aspects of the game, I'm interested in combat aspects. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give Larian a 9 on capturing "theatre of the mind feel" and a 5 on "D&D combat feel". I'd also argue that Larian markets itself as company that excels at tactical play.

Quote

As I said in my very first post in response to you, better is subjective and it depends on the person giving feedback. Better for you does not necessarily mean better for someone else.


But that's a given. In the absence of data we only have access to our opinions. Like the OP, I would like to see an official poll. Unlike you I think that if the devs listen to results of that poll and make changes it will be to their benefit.

Larian already has the loyalty of DOS fans, it needs to earn the loyalty of 5th edition fans. I'm trying to help them do that. It just so happen that a side effect of my generosity is a game I would really like to play smile
Originally Posted by mrfuji3


If D&D is more mainstream, then those who are arguing for BG3 to follow 5e rules are not "niche."


Brilliant.

Or are part of the niche the devs want to please.
Quote
The feedback you see given on these forums, is not from these types of players, it is largely from the type of player who has been (as they will tell you) playing D&D for the past 20-30 years and has very deeply entrenched and "hardcore" views.

No. If you actually look at the threads majority are of the more mundane, superficial, mainstream nature.

Additionally, the term "hardcore" and "deeply entrenched" and meaningless negative classifications that dont say anything about the actual suggestions and ideas. You just paint whoever you want with that broad brush and then take that as somehow relevant in considering how good their suggestions or ideas are. Which is completely nonsense.

And of course according to yourself, any and all ideas and suggestions are meaningless because someone else will dislike them. I.e there cannot be anything better than anything else.

Which will of course make the whole game meaningless and not "good" because someone will dislike it. As if "someone" simply disliking something is an issue of actual quality and merit of that thing.

The Absolute relativism.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester


However, the game IS being marketed toward "niche" or very specific audience: it is a "main entry Baldur's Gate game" and a "D&D 5e game". They were pretty clear in marketing it as such, and therefore, in my opinion, it is fair to hold the game to being appealing not just to any RPG player, but specifically to these groups. And yes, Larian have made it quite difficult for themselves...


The thing about BG1&2 is... you don't need to understand the systems to enjoy the games. I don't consider myself a hardcore player. To this day my understanding of all the 2AD&D systems is... incomplete at best. Yet it never stopped me from enjoying the games, and not because I had nothing else to play.


Exactly right. Larian wants to ride the wave of rising popularity and WotC wants inspire more devs to make video games. For many, this will be their introduction to the ruleset. As @Ellenhard said -- BG2 encouraged more people to take an interest in the PnP version of the game. Let's hope this game has the same impact.
I feel like this discussion moved on a bit from "what Larian said and did" to "which type of criticism Larian should listen to.", which is fine I guess.

I want to address something some of you raise here about BG2 being a mainstream game. I don't think it's true. at the very least, I don't think BG2 is as mainstream as letter Bioware products were. If we take kotor for example, their systems are very similar (or at least seem very similar to a casual guy like me. Wait a second, a casual? here on the hardcore forum?! more on that later). The biggest difference, if I put aside the full 3d graphics and the massive increase in voice acting (only the protag in that game is not voiced), is the fact that Kotor is much easier. much more.

now let me tell you about my first experience with BG2 - it was a fucking nightmare. I was much younger, and English is not my first language, but The dialogue was the least of my problems. I felt like this game just keeps pushing me down, as no matter what I do I can't keep my party members from being held\confused\charmed, I didn't even realize there is a difference between these stats half of the time, and spell descriptions were an absolute nightmare to figure out. Of course, my party members eventually died (and this is the best-case scenario, in the worst case they turned into stone or completely disappeared as a result of some other spell), but unlike later Bioware game, they actually die, and I had no idea what to do with it. And over the years games became more streamlined, not less.

I think it took me at least another year to give BG another try, but even that playthrough (which I played on easy) was very hard and I did almost everything following some guides. I think it was worth it, but I also think that I could have enjoyed the game much more if it was a more casual experience. and lo and behold, the best addition to EE for me is, of course, story mode. Over the years I got better after several playthroughs, but I would never dedicate so much time and effort if it weren't for the story and characters.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

If you assume that the survey sample represents those who post on the forum (not unreasonable), we see that more people are on this forum are here because they've played DOS1&2 or DAO versus BG1&2, and 35% (not an insignificant amount) have NOT played 5e. So posters on this forum are not overwhelmingly from BG1&2/old D&D purists. A majority, sure, but also take into account that these players, like me, may have only played BG1&2 in recent years after starting with 5e.

If you look at the answers of only those who are NOT familiar with 5e (assuming that these type of players are the "mainstream" audience Larian is looking for) https://i.imgur.com/KAcSU4N.png, they still dislike e.g., surface effects, increased HP, and stealthing as a bonus action available to everyone.


You know that survey is a piece of shit right? Take note of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316

And look at the language employed by the survey without bias and see if it passes a basic test. It actually doesn't. Beyond that the sample size is fucking terrible so extrapolating data from that is kind of worthless unless we're talking very specific things.
And we aren't.

You can also look at the Steam reviews which has a larger sample size and those do not reflect the same sentiments as expressed in the survey.

I think it's very stupid to think that the forum and everyone who partakes in it is representative of anything but the type of people who visit forums which is a subset of the audience that Larian happens to capture ( as you pointed out we have no idea what audience Larian is actually looking for) - we're all pretty special. If you want to talk about the mainstream then the approval rate is 88% on Steam currently with a sample size of 26k which is far higher than any aggregate provided by the shitty survey. It also comes with some kind of standard unlike the survey.

Also, the majority of the posters here do not fucking care about the combat so much as caring for their own class, cosmetics, or narrative aligned things; go ahead, chop down, and reorganize all the threads created by people here organize the threads by user and reduce them down to one theme and you'll most likely find that the majority isn't combat related.

Do you not realize your own bias?
Originally Posted by Abits


I want to address something some of you raise here about BG2 being a mainstream game. I don't think it's true.


The demographics have changed too, because I am pretty sure most of the PC gamers back in the day were pretty 'hardcore' or whatever you want to call it. But you know what's funny? If you look at https://web.archive.org/web/20030820032731/https://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_020207.htm which includes games from '99 it still basically says that there is a strong argument that BG2 is a niche game.

BG3 will be the first contender to try and become a mainstream game, but I doubt it because you're still gonna compete with COD / Among Us / Minecraft / Fortnite etc. those are actual mainstream games.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

More broadly, if you look at the results of the forums survey https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=712680
-88% of people who filled out the form played DOS1/2
-82% played DAO
-69% played BG1/2
-82% are familiar with the 5e rules
-65% played tabletop 5e.
If you assume that the survey sample represents those who post on the forum (not unreasonable), we see that more people are on this forum are here because they've played DOS1&2 or DAO versus BG1&2, and 35% (not an insignificant amount) have NOT played 5e. So posters on this forum are not overwhelmingly from BG1&2/old D&D purists. A majority, sure, but also take into account that these players, like me, may have only played BG1&2 in recent years after starting with 5e.

If you look at the answers of only those who are NOT familiar with 5e (assuming that these type of players are the "mainstream" audience Larian is looking for) https://i.imgur.com/KAcSU4N.png, they still dislike e.g., surface effects, increased HP, and stealthing as a bonus action available to everyone.

tl;dr: I don't agree with your assertion that most people on this forum have been playing D&D for 20-30 years. And even if they are, there are still common arguments between "d&d purists" and "mainstream players"


I would ideally like to have access to the dataset so I could draw my own conclusions from it, but I will (for now) accept these numbers as given as a representation of the forums. I will add that I am not entirely convinced the language used in that survey passes a test for bias, but I don't want to be stuck quibbling about minutiae all day. With that being said, this still all comes back to my initial point that I made 2 pages ago however of, "even if it is what all of the players want, we don't know if it is what Larian wants," and until they clarify what they are and are not willing to budge on, its just a matter of us going back in forth in circular arguments.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

It was mean as a compliment. If it came across as anything else it was due to the fact that I took charisma as a dump stat wink

It was also a "I see what did you did there" combined with a "well done". I declared myself a pleb and you challenged that. As far as ad populum there is a variant in which an argument is dismissed because it is associated with a particular elite group of people. It's a particularly powerful technique because people are rarely willing to give up their (hard earned) status as experts in a matter. The more you put yourself forth as an authority, the deeper the hole gets. For someone who hasn't had a rhetoric class you've intuited the form perfectly. I think @uncle lester's chosen word of "veteran" is a good one but I think we've found our word -- nerd. Doesn't have unfortunate connotations of expert but makes the case well.

Ok, then thanks :P

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit


And this is where I see the form returning. Having agreed that BG2 was a nerd's game and was better for it I think you return to the "biased sample" by saying that any forum feedback is poisoned because forums are out of date.

Quote
BG 1 and 2 were made in a different era, when the market was much smaller, much less saturated and the expectations of the player were different. At the time when BG 1 and 2 were released, most people playing PC games were us nerds. You could reasonably expect the people who are playing the game, to have some understanding of the ruleset . . .

Forums are still largely visited by the same groups of people however, the newer communities in gaming prefer different mediums of communication . . . My point being, time goes on, things change.


Or, in brief, that assessment is out of date. Right? It's a way of dismissing the sense of the majority of the forum.

And it gets to the point of our disagreement -- I don't have strong opinions about how the X men movies should be made but I do their success has come, in part, because the directors have paid such close attention to the opinions of the comic book nerds. I really do think those nerds are as responsible for the success of movies I enjoyed as were the producers.

Quote

This is different to today, where I would argue that the average person playing PC games is not us nerds, it is far more of a mainstream hobby. There is another aspect of this as well, D&D itself has changed. Back when D&D was originally conceived, its roots were in war gaming. At the time of 2e, this was still present to some extent, with some of the rules like for example the different armor types being good against different damage types being present because of this.


I don't disagree with the theater of mind the mind characterization but I don't think it applies to the discussion -- I'm not critiquing the theatre of the mind aspects of the game, I'm interested in combat aspects. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give Larian a 9 on capturing "theatre of the mind feel" and a 5 on "D&D combat feel". I'd also argue that Larian markets itself as company that excels at tactical play.

Quote

As I said in my very first post in response to you, better is subjective and it depends on the person giving feedback. Better for you does not necessarily mean better for someone else.


But that's a given. In the absence of data we only have access to our opinions. Like the OP, I would like to see an official poll. Unlike you I think that if the devs listen to results of that poll and make changes it will be to their benefit.

Larian already has the loyalty of DOS fans, it needs to earn the loyalty of 5th edition fans. I'm trying to help them do that. It just so happen that a side effect of my generosity is a game I would really like to play smile


See response to @mrfuji3 above, I will concede that it might be the majority view for now, but as I said, even if it is, we do not know if its a topic that Larian is willing to budge on.
Originally Posted by Surface R

No. If you actually look at the threads majority are of the more mundane, superficial, mainstream nature.

The majority of the threads which are opened do not make up the majority of the discussion which is taking place. I am not going to scrape the forums to gather data to prove this point, but I think we can both agree that the majority of discussion which is occurring here, can be attributed to only a few posters, which are pushing a very clear narrative.
Originally Posted by Surface R

Additionally, the term "hardcore" and "deeply entrenched" and meaningless negative classifications that dont say anything about the actual suggestions and ideas. You just paint whoever you want with that broad brush and then take that as somehow relevant in considering how good their suggestions or ideas are. Which is completely nonsense.

Those terms were not negative. Indeed, I consider myself to have a more "hardcore" mindset and I also have some opinions which are, "deeply entrenched." If you see them as being negative, then that is entirely on you. We can quibble about whether they are meaningless or not and we can very easily remove any possibility of "meaninglessness" as well. If you want, I will define exactly what I mean by them, then you have some terms to use.
Originally Posted by Surface R

And of course according to yourself, any and all ideas and suggestions are meaningless because someone else will dislike them. I.e there cannot be anything better than anything else.

Which will of course make the whole game meaningless and not "good" because someone will dislike it. As if "someone" simply disliking something is an issue of actual quality and merit of that thing.

The Absolute relativism.

I never said that at all, although what I said was similar and I guess can be interpreted that way. What I said is, what is good and what is bad is subjective and is dependent on the person who is making the judgement call as well as whatever criteria they are using. In this case, the person who has the ultimate authority is not you, or me, or anyone else involved in the argument, it is Larian. That does not make the ideas meaningless at all, it just means that the framework in which you judge them changes depending on the circumstances. For example, I am a huge fan of both 4x games and RPGs, but if I used the criteria that I use to judge a 4x game in order to judge an RPG, I would be doing the RPG a disservice. Obviously, after a game is finished, the crowd which ultimately decides what is good or bad is arguably the market, although that doesn't stop me from personally considering things which the market hates to be "good."

Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Abits


I want to address something some of you raise here about BG2 being a mainstream game. I don't think it's true.


The demographics have changed too, because I am pretty sure most of the PC gamers back in the day were pretty 'hardcore' or whatever you want to call it. But you know what's funny? If you look at https://web.archive.org/web/20030820032731/https://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_020207.htm which includes games from '99 it still basically says that there is a strong argument that BG2 is a niche game.

BG3 will be the first contender to try and become a mainstream game, but I doubt it because you're still gonna compete with COD / Among Us / Minecraft / Fortnite etc. those are actual mainstream games.

And where do Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and Witcher 3 fit on the "mainstream scale"?
Originally Posted by Limz

I haven't seen one person actually break down the possibilities then list out what compromises can and cannot be made. Yet, you are all claiming that your expertise can fit the bill without further qualification.

It's really surprising because these questions are basic interview questions you would get when you apply for a technical position.

Do any of you really have the relevant expertise and have any of you actually gone through the rigors to show that you have that expertise? Doubt it.

They can certainly learn from us, but it's not really all that much because very few people here have empathy let alone a good grasp of logic.


Your statements are certainly not true, if you'll kindly take the time to actually read what people post here.
I, for one, came here with a respect for the opinions of many people in this thread. And would really like for this thread to stay constructive, even though I hear contradicting opinions.

We are (partially) waiting for Larian representatives to form their own understanding of their resources, willingness to share with us, the capability to ask or direct.

Or it could be like it is now, and while it isn't bad at all on a grand scale, I'd say there will be missed opportunities.
Originally Posted by Limz
You know that survey is a piece of shit right? Take note of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316

And look at the language employed by the survey without bias and see if it passes a basic test. It actually doesn't. Beyond that the sample size is fucking terrible so extrapolating data from that is kind of worthless unless we're talking very specific things.
And we aren't.

You can also look at the Steam reviews which has a larger sample size and those do not reflect the same sentiments as expressed in the survey.

I think it's very stupid to think that the forum and everyone who partakes in it is representative of anything but the type of people who visit forums which is a subset of the audience that Larian happens to capture ( as you pointed out we have no idea what audience Larian is actually looking for) - we're all pretty special. If you want to talk about the mainstream then the approval rate is 88% on Steam currently with a sample size of 26k which is far higher than any aggregate provided by the shitty survey. It also comes with some kind of standard unlike the survey.

Also, the majority of the posters here do not fucking care about the combat so much as caring for their own class, cosmetics, or narrative aligned things; go ahead, chop down, and reorganize all the threads created by people here organize the threads by user and reduce them down to one theme and you'll most likely find that the majority isn't combat related.

Do you not realize your own bias?

Is there a better survey to use? No.
I am well aware of the problems with samples sizes, question biases, etc. But the questions that ask "Have you played tabletop 5e? Have you played X game?" are prettttttty straightforward.

We are talking specific things: is the forum representative of mainstream audience, as measured by their experience with D&D. See above questions.

You compare steam reviews to forum posts. The problem with steam reviews are that most of them are just "Is the game good or bad"? A game can be good without being great, but a lot of steam reviews aren't critical because there is no discussion on steam reviews, so why bother? The Steam BG3 discussion board is more relevant to the topic at hand.
AND, the steam reviews match well with the forum response. See that survey: most people respond 7-10 for "How has the game met your expectations through EA?" and "How likely is it that you would recommend BG3 EA to a friend?" 88% approval rate on Steam is similar to responses of 7-10 for these questions.

Umm...who cares if "the majority of posters/threads created...aren't combat related?" That's besides the point. We are discussing the experience levels of people on the forum and whether the forum posts represent the mainstream audience's opinions. Opinions on narrative, classes, etc are still opinions.
Originally Posted by Sharp
I would ideally like to have access to the dataset so I could draw my own conclusions from it, but I will (for now) accept these numbers as given. I will add that I am not entirely convinced the language used in that survey passes a test for bias, but I don't want to be stuck quibbling about minutiae all day. With that being said, this still all comes back to my initial point that I made 2 pages ago however of, "even if it is what all of the players want, we don't know if it is what Larian wants," and until they clarify what they are and are not willing to budge on, its just a matter of us going back in forth in circular arguments.

Fair. We have some idea of what Larian wants (e.g., "missing is not fun"), but definitely not a full picture.
There is definitely a lot of circular arguments going on in these forums. Hopefully the next update from Larian will give us information on their plan/things they refuse to budge on, so we can better focus discussion.
Again, I would caution against waiving the white flag at a "not going to budge" comment. I saw Bioware refuse to budge on evil playthroughs for years. And eventually that niche won. There's an old fable about the person who gets the door opened not because the homeowner wanted to open the door but because the people on outside wouldn't stop knocking.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Again, I would caution against waiving the white flag at a "not going to budge" comment. I saw Bioware refuse to budge on evil playthroughs for years. And eventually that niche won. There's an old fable about the person who gets the door opened not because the homeowner wanted to open the door but because the people on outside wouldn't stop knocking.

I still cannot think of any Bioware games which have dedicated evil paths. In fact, their older games (BG 1 and 2) are the ones which probably have the most evil decisions available in them, over time if anything they have become entrenched in this view. In dragon age origins, you cannot side with the darkspawn and nor is their a path which ends with anything other than the death of the archdemon. My mind has thankfully wiped all memory of DA 2, but unless I am wrong, it didn't have an evil path either. Nor does inquisition. Just because other companies are open to doing evil paths, does not mean bioware has changed at all.
tl;dr :: none of your argumentation has anything to do with the article.

Bottom line: Swen gave some vacuous answers to pointed questions about player feedback by emphasizing non issues (like "clamouring for more environmental effects!) and skirting others completely (like, I guarantee you that party movement and the chain system will remain untouched, despite how much people hate it).
You could technically play as "evil" even though it was all for the purpose of defeating the Archdemon.
You could kill the elves to ally yourself with the werewolves (or vice versa).
You could keep an anvil of void to get golems.
You could have wiped out the entire circle to get Templar support.
You could have killed Connor or Isolde to stop the demon.
You could even leave Redclife at the mercy of the undeads.
Dragon Age origins probably had the best wrong path without making the character caricatically evil, unlike BG1 and BG2 where playing the evil character was pointless (the game actively punished you for playing the evil character).
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Again, I would caution against waiving the white flag at a "not going to budge" comment. I saw Bioware refuse to budge on evil playthroughs for years. And eventually that niche won. There's an old fable about the person who gets the door opened not because the homeowner wanted to open the door but because the people on outside wouldn't stop knocking.


If I'm not mistaken, Swen gave an example of Larian being very stubborn about durability (D:OS2 EA) and budging in the end. So we'd have a precedent from Larian. This is also why I'm not against "unlikely" suggestions or suggestions about system Larian described as set in stone (day/night cycle). One exception would be RTwP (unfortunately), since it would require developing a new combat system almost from scratch.
Originally Posted by Abits

And where do Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and Witcher 3 fit on the "mainstream scale"?


Well, they're up there I just neglected to mention them -- Witcher 3 is a national treasure apparently so that I think is cheating. I don't think DO:S2 came close to any of those three.
Fun fact, how you approach data analysis totally depends on people.

I've read quickly through the posts about " satisfaction surveys " etc and you guys try to use them to pinpoint if the " general vibe" of this forum is representative of the majority which is supposed to be represented by Steam. It's a very good question and although quite hard to answer( due to the issue with the survey itself) I lived in a word where you actually ignore the majority when analyzing data. You need them to make sure everything works " in general" but when it comes to improving systems average joe isn't loud enough.


If 10 000 people receive a product ( BG3 ^^) most of them should rate it 6 or 8/10. If that happens, the product is good enought.
Then you take every review below 6 and above 8 and the opinion of those guys should actually matter.

The idea being those who rate he product 9 and 10 will talk about it and promote it.
Those who rate it negatively(5 and less) will harm the product's popularity.
And those who say " it's good enough, could be better?" . Well.... those guys won't change anyone's mind.

It's a simplified description of a way more complicated mindset when it comes to approaching data. But if you look at your discussion above from this perspective you can assume that the majority liked it based on steam + the sells. And now you're talking with the 8+ and 5-. The 6/8 will post once and disappear.

Just my 2 cents.
@virion This is basically the principle that "only the happiest or the most unhappy people leave feedback," right? Therefore, no forum (or steam reviews or whatever) will actually be representative of the true population of players?

I could accept this, with the following caveat. As this product is in EA, many so-called 6-8s might have a stronger desire to participate in the forums than they would otherwise. Quite possibly to advocate against changes by saying that they're happy enough with the current game. This would actually increase the number of "effective 9/10" posters.

Or the opposite could happen: people who would otherwise just rate the game as "fine" are encouraged to find flaws that they'd otherwise not comment on...
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
@virion This is basically the principle that "only the happiest or the most unhappy people leave feedback," right? Therefore, no forum (or steam reviews or whatever) will actually be representative of the true population of players?

I could accept this, with the following caveat. As this product is in EA, many so-called 6-8s might have a stronger desire to participate in the forums than they would otherwise. Quite possibly to advocate against changes by saying that they're happy enough with the current game. This would actually increase the number of "effective 9/10" posters.

Or the opposite could happen: people who would otherwise just rate the game as "fine" are encouraged to find flaws that they'd otherwise not comment on...


1)this is basically the principle that "only the happiest or the most unhappy people leave feedback," right? Therefore, no forum (or steam reviews or whatever) will actually be representative of the true population of players?

Kinda. But the point is rather that we don't care about the true population of players as long as they are " overall happy". They might leave feedback but we pat them on their head and ignore them. Kinda funny how Electronic Arts did the exact opposite for a long time.

2) The context of the EA is really important too and I skipped it, you are right. Which might explain to some extent why nearly 38% voted 9+ on recommending the EA to others. The low number of respondents it's also one of the reasons. Together with other questions being formulated very poorly and orienting the answers(that last statement can be argued about forever, creating a reliable survey is super complex though).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgN2IAZi8Hho6X_7XpiW-0N_cUYEJvX8/view



The whole reason for approaching data this way is to keep a good "overall" image and eleminate people demoting the product. Enhancing on aspects helping to promote the product is a secondary task.

I talk about this because for some reason people tend to bring this " Niche vs Majority" argument in discussions about features. "If the majority doesn't like it , then it doesn't make sense to even talk about it seriously". It's not the case. The end result will be a few % of people telling you not to buy bg and a few % telling you to buy it at all cost. The 2nd group should be higher than the 1st one.

When you think of it the idea of collecting feedback based of a forum is actually problematic due to this last paragraph alone. A person adressing an issue vocally and saying it's a gigantic issue might be a promoter in reality.
The whole system exists as a customer satisfaction initiative aiming at controlling the image of a company and it's products. That's why it's problematic to apply it to software development in it's pure form too. But with the magic of "telemetry" implemented in video games you could go as far as trying to force the feedback via ingame pop-up at the end of let's say 10 hours of gameplay(after finishing a session for instance) just to get the " satisfaction" number. And then you would know if the majority actually matters.

I think I need to change my life choices and go to game dev, I'm so curious what this data could bring.

Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Your statements are certainly not true, if you'll kindly take the time to actually read what people post here.
I, for one, came here with a respect for the opinions of many people in this thread. And would really like for this thread to stay constructive, even though I hear contradicting opinions.

We are (partially) waiting for Larian representatives to form their own understanding of their resources, willingness to share with us, the capability to ask or direct.

Or it could be like it is now, and while it isn't bad at all on a grand scale, I'd say there will be missed opportunities.


Really? There's only one person who asks the right question thus far and that's Orbax in his signature and there's Whispering Spider who can definitely hold his own and understands the basic questions posed by people like Surface and Sharp.

Yet, in spite of that, no one has actually sketched out what the demographic breakdown would be like at a basic level and what mechanical changes means to each. You can pretty much apply this across the board to all concerns. Here is an example illustrating what I mean:

Given the possibility that Larian has to cater between 5e purists, nostalgia driven players, new players with minimal RPG experience, co-op players (could be a subset of the previous), players who have moderate experience with RPGs but prefer narrative experiences etc. what kind of combat flow would be acceptable to that audience, of what percentage might we lose if we increase the turns of the average combat by say five and how would player experience be if they missed more often? etc. What are the trade offs, how can we tweak the system and maximize users?

Name me anyone who bothers to actually do that because that's, at a bare minimum, what any game dev has to think about when given possible constraints (as highlighted by the interviews) such as these at a minimum (we don't know their other constraints). People like Isaac, Victor, Maximuus, and KillerRabbit simply do not care to answer that basic as fuck question.

There's nothing respectable about opinions that have zero work behind them and not one iota of brain power, you can pretty much compound everything they say into 5e > *. While they understand the rules they don't actually understand the system or its actual break points because they have never put themselves in the shoes of what a DM is supposed to be which is a game designer or a systems architect. If they did then they would at least be able to compete with Larian while heading in a different direction.

But hey it's great that you have respect for opinions that are rarely substantiated or well thought out and would never pass for any technical vigor, bravo.

If you want a thread to be constructive then why don't you take the time to read the interviews you posted and pretend to be in their shoes? Is that so hard to ask?

Oh, wait, it's because you're not interested in asking the hard questions and answering them, I am willing to wager that the questions are above you based on reading your previous posts here.

And I have definitely read most of the posts here, it's basically quips and agreements here and there or circle jerks about how it's not D&D or not BG or it needs to be more BG - again not much real substance behind it and when pushed by either Sharp and others here there's not much of a defense either.
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Your statements are certainly not true, if you'll kindly take the time to actually read what people post here.
I, for one, came here with a respect for the opinions of many people in this thread. And would really like for this thread to stay constructive, even though I hear contradicting opinions.

We are (partially) waiting for Larian representatives to form their own understanding of their resources, willingness to share with us, the capability to ask or direct.

Or it could be like it is now, and while it isn't bad at all on a grand scale, I'd say there will be missed opportunities.


Really? There's only one person who asks the right question thus far and that's Orbax in his signature and there's Whispering Spider who can definitely hold his own and understands the basic questions posed by people like Surface and Sharp.



Name me anyone who bothers to actually do that because that's, at a bare minimum, what any game dev has to think about when given possible constraints (as highlighted by the interviews) such as these at a minimum (we don't know their other constraints). People like Isaac, Victor, Maximuus, and KillerRabbit simply do not care to answer that basic as fuck question.

There's nothing respectable about opinions that have zero work behind them and not one iota of brain power, you can pretty much compound everything they say into 5e > *. While they understand the rules they don't actually understand the system or its actual break points because they have never put themselves in the shoes of what a DM is supposed to be which is a game designer or a systems architect.



You're trying to do Larian's job for some reason. Just focus on discussing features as you see fit for yourself. That's what others do. If you try to analyze a feature based on audience as a user then I really don't see what you're trying to achieve.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Again, I would caution against waiving the white flag at a "not going to budge" comment. I saw Bioware refuse to budge on evil playthroughs for years. And eventually that niche won. There's an old fable about the person who gets the door opened not because the homeowner wanted to open the door but because the people on outside wouldn't stop knocking.


If I'm not mistaken, Swen gave an example of Larian being very stubborn about durability (D:OS2 EA) and budging in the end. So we'd have a precedent from Larian. This is also why I'm not against "unlikely" suggestions or suggestions about system Larian described as set in stone (day/night cycle). One exception would be RTwP (unfortunately), since it would require developing a new combat system almost from scratch.


Perfect example! You always lose the battle you don't fight.

Very interesting @Virion. Forum really needs a like button but I do find that valuable.

Also, @Sharp is right to say that Bioware themselves did not move much but I think we would agree that over devs have responded to that discourse.
Originally Posted by virion


The whole reason for approaching data this way is to keep a good "overall" image and eleminate people demoting the product. Enhancing on aspects helping to promote the product is a secondary task.

I talk about this because for some reason people tend to bring this " Niche vs Majority" argument in discussions about features. "If the majority doesn't like it , then it doesn't make sense to even talk about it seriously". It's not the case. The end result will be a few % of people telling you not to buy bg and a few % telling you to buy it at all cost. The 2nd group should be higher than the 1st one.

When you think of it the idea of collecting feedback based of a forum is actually problematic due to this last paragraph alone. A person adressing an issue vocally and saying it's a gigantic issue might be a promoter in reality.
The whole system exists as a customer satisfaction initiative aiming at controlling the image of a company and it's products. That's why it's problematic to apply it to software development in it's pure form too. But with the magic of "telemetry" implemented in video games you could go as far as trying to force the feedback via ingame pop-up at the end of let's say 10 hours of gameplay(after finishing a session for instance) just to get the " satisfaction" number. And then you would know if the majority actually matters.

I think I need to change my life choices and go to game dev, I'm so curious what this data could bring.



... Or you could just do what they're doing already, by the way welcome to 2020, have you heard of a defunct company called Cambridge Analytica? Or a small company called Facebook or a feature called Google Maps or Waze?

The best way is to look at actual player behavior and mine the players for information then construct profiles based on that and let that inform you while adding forum/reddit/whatever feedback as secondary sources.

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?

This is where the real data is at, not a stupid survey, not these forums, not reddit.
Originally Posted by virion

You're trying to do Larian's job for some reason. Just focus on discussing features as you see fit for yourself. That's what others do.


Lol, really?

Asking people to be objective or to think about the problem that's causing them so much discomfort is suddenly Larian's job. You're ridiculous.

Originally Posted by virion

If you try to analyze a feature based on audience as a user then I really don't see what you're trying to achieve.


Then you don't really deserve to work in any field remotely touching a product in any way shape or form right?

You do realize that Larian also plays their own game right? And that other devs play other games right and often go through the same process of thinking?

You know devs that aren't related to video games, such as myself, use a product (like a certain HR/Payroll app) while also having to analyze it from an audience perspective right (hint: it's part of your fucking job)?

So, when you read what I wrote, nowhere did you think that after having achieved what I have asked that there is any gain? No new refinements in arguments, no perspectives, no new questions can be gained?

Like you don't think after applying any argument to these rigors they'll come out stronger or at least have a path to be stronger or have more clarity?

So, you simply prefer people to say "5e is perfectly balanced, we should use this" with no context? Amazing.
Originally Posted by Limz


... Or you could just do what they're doing already, by the way welcome to 2020, have you heard of a defunct company called Cambridge Analytica? Or a small company called Facebook or a feature called Google Maps or Waze?

The best way is to look at actual player behavior and mine the players for information then construct profiles based on that and let that inform you while adding forum/reddit/whatever feedback as secondary sources.

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?

This is where the real data is at, not a stupid survey, not these forums, not reddit.


And no point what Larian is doing right now replaces what I talked about.

1) Never heard of Google, thanks for the tip mate. Cool website. wink

2) Agreed about the in-game data but I also mentioned it in my post. So yes, I'm aware of it.

3) The " real data" being from in-game data and not forums or reddit applies to analyzing impact of features on gameplay experience. That's pretty much it. You could admit players dropping the game at a given point is an indicator of the quality but players not finishing games is a way bigger subject than it seems so it's arguably not an argument for quality.



You can claim forums are only a marginal way of gathering feedback about gameplay and in the end aren't the main drive for decisions made by Larian. You will be right. Even if it stills makes sense to have it since you might see solutions to things that are an actual problems according to the data you gathered.

You ignore one aspect in what I said though.

Forums have an impact on the game's image. Those interviews Sven went through are partially based precisely on reddit and this forum.

Now the topic of impact of reviews from metacritic and interviews like the ones listed before on sales is a different subject. Precisely why I talked about the satisfaction meter being added as part of in game data.
Right now you have to guess people's opinion about it. Being able to connect the end result to the gameplay experience is actually a huge thing.
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by virion

You're trying to do Larian's job for some reason. Just focus on discussing features as you see fit for yourself. That's what others do.


Lol, really?

Asking people to be objective or to think about the problem that's causing them so much discomfort is suddenly Larian's job. You're ridiculous.

Originally Posted by virion

If you try to analyze a feature based on the audience as a user then I really don't see what you're trying to achieve.


Then you don't really deserve to work in any field remotely touching a product in any way shape or form right?

You do realize that Larian also plays their own game right? And that other devs play other games right and often go through the same process of thinking?

You know devs that aren't related to video games, such as myself, use a product (like a certain HR/Payroll app) while also having to analyze it from an audience perspective right (hint: it's part of your fucking job)?

So, when you read what I wrote, nowhere did you think that after having achieved what I have asked that there is any gain? No new refinements in arguments, no perspectives, no new questions can be gained?

Like you don't think after applying any argument to these rigors they'll come out stronger or at least have a path to be stronger or have more clarity?

So, you simply prefer people to say "5e is perfectly balanced, we should use this" with no context? Amazing.



You could use some chill. I'm taking personal comments as misplaced.


"So, you simply prefer people to say "5e is perfectly balanced, we should use this" with no context? Amazing. "

1)I prefer them to say how they defined themselves as a player, what they want, and why. Three things. No in-game data will give you this explicitely. You can get a profile, what feature they use and you have to figure out why.

2)At no point a user explaining to me he wants a feature but don't think it makes sense because others won't like it because [insert reason] based on his personal experience is to be dissmised[Aka Dev /DM experience]. But the 2nd part of his opinion isn't exactly the center of the discussion. What matters it's he's a DM + Software Dev + Plays X hours a day paired with #1 above.

Your entire paragraph though was aimed at re-centering the entire discussion about the 2nd point. And even more, delving into the details of it(That's how it felt when I was reading it). You're effectively harming yourself in the process in my opinion.


Small disclaimer:
I was talking about something a bit different in my posts on this page, I was referring more to PR in the context of those articles and the forum. Less than the actual impact of the forum on decision making.
Originally Posted by Limz


You do realize that Larian also plays their own game right? And that other devs play other games right and often go through the same process of thinking?

You know devs that aren't related to video games, such as myself, use a product (like a certain HR/Payroll app) while also having to analyze it from an audience perspective right (hint: it's part of your fucking job)?
So, when you read what I wrote, nowhere did you think that after having achieved what I have asked that there is any gain? No new refinements in arguments, no perspectives, no new questions can be gained?
Like you don't think after applying any argument to these rigors they'll come out stronger or at least have a path to be stronger or have more clarity?


Larian is not a person who plays their own game. In actual reality devs rarely do and are mostly very bad at it. Because they actually spend far more time in development and are not really game players but - developers.
And due to that fact have a very different perception of the gameplay when they actually engage in it.

The rest of that reply is just a series of strawman hallucinations about what someone else thinks you created yourself.


Originally Posted by Limz

So, you simply prefer people to say "5e is perfectly balanced, we should use this" with no context? Amazing.

Another ridiculous strawman.

Quote

.. Or you could just do what they're doing already, by the way welcome to 2020, have you heard of a defunct company called Cambridge Analytica? Or a small company called Facebook or a feature called Google Maps or Waze?

What a hilariously self defeating argument in light of how much damage, distortion and various other negative influences and consequences all these companies created out of that specific data mining laser focused on the worst the human kind can offer, their amalgams and issues of how that can be used to draw in and ruin the rest.

Quote
The best way is to look at actual player behavior and mine the players for information then construct profiles based on that and let that inform you while adding forum/reddit/whatever feedback as secondary sources.

Best way for what? Delusions? Amassed lowest common denominators base reflexes?

Not that forums or reddit is much better, but this is the same as if someone would argue that every post and thread on the forums and reddit is equally valuable.

Quote

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?

Oy, the capabilities. How fancy. The heat maps! They sure tell you almost absolutely nothing because of the very fact players dont have any other options but to go where the content is and engage in as much of it as it is available.
Romance rates? How can any of that data reveal if those rates are happening because players actually really like those romances - or simply because its just content that can be clicked on and it makes little sense to avoid it. Especially early on when nobody knows where such content may lead. Or not. How much of it is actual enjoyment and how much is just early curiosity or fear about missing something?

You need data mining to tell you a lot of people will pet the damn dog? Or try to have sex with every companion they can? Really?

I can tell you the same for much less money - any time you ask. What a big reveal. Astounding data mining technologies and capabilities.

This sort of data can show something. Its not completely worthless but its largely superficial and very amenable to whatever interpretation is easy to make in order to give some easy lines to marketing.


Quote
This is where the real data is at, not a stupid survey, not these forums, not reddit.

Only if you are delusional, ignorant and prefer to lie to yourself. Preference of this kind of extremely limited and distorted data samples happens because its a great excuse to avoid actually dealing with people who play your EA or whatever, which is often difficult and fraught with traps of modern social media and mass temper tantrum reactions.


Originally Posted by Surface R



Quote

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?


Oy, the capabilities. How fancy. The heat maps! They sure tell you almost absolutely nothing because of the very fact players dont have any other options but to go where the content is and engage in as much of it as it is available.
Romance rates? How can any of that data reveal if those rates are happening because players actually really like those romances - or simply because its just content that can be clicked on and it makes little sense to avoid it. Especially early on when nobody knows where such content may lead. Or not. How much of it is actual enjoyment and how much is just early curiosity or fear about missing something?

You need data mining to tell you a lot of people will pet the damn dog? Or try to have sex with every companion they can? Really?

I can tell you the same for much less money - any time you ask. What a big reveal. Astounding data mining technologies and capabilities.




Yeah, it's not a replacement. Forum feedback and in game data analysis provide answers to two different questions basically. Forum provide more "brainstorm" answers but they can be incorporated in the whole process quite efficiently if done well.

I would love steam to provide public info about the playerbase of all games for devs, but I'm afraid that's not gonna happen. For it to be relevant it would require access to playerbase count per game and that's sensitive info for each company.

I've enjoyed the conversation, I've been impressed with the attempts to keep it on track but I'm starting to think

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Limz

The best way is to look at actual player behavior and mine the players for information then construct profiles based on that and let that inform you while adding forum/reddit/whatever feedback as secondary sources.

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?

This is where the real data is at, not a stupid survey, not these forums, not reddit.

Forum and other non game source feedback should be important I think. Some people play mostly in offline mode for various reasons (in my case it is due to late night internet issues), rather hard to analyze this data. Also, data analysis, while helpful, is probably only showing them a small amount of information. A high rate of death somewhere could mean hard content but also lag, the controls, stupidity, really anything. Petting the dog is an exploit to raise approval, it maybe shows how many people are using it, not how many would really pet the dog. Romances, well people are testing the game so there will be a high rate of this since people want to know what happens with everyone, not who they really like. Most people taking the "good" path doesn't show them how to fix the "evil" path.
Originally Posted by virion


You could use some chill. I'm taking personal comments as misplaced.


"So, you simply prefer people to say "5e is perfectly balanced, we should use this" with no context? Amazing. "

1)I prefer them to say how they defined themselves as a player, what they want, and why. Three things. No in-game data will give you this explicitely. You can get a profile, what feature they use and you have to figure out why.

2)At no point a user explaining to me he wants a feature but don't think it makes sense because others won't like it because [insert reason] based on his personal experience is to be dissmised[Aka Dev /DM experience]. But the 2nd part of his opinion isn't exactly the center of the discussion. What matters it's he's a DM + Software Dev + Plays X hours a day paired with #1 above.

Your entire paragraph though was aimed at re-centering the entire discussion about the 2nd point. And even more, delving into the details of it(That's how it felt when I was reading it). You're effectively harming yourself in the process in my opinion.


Small disclaimer:
I was talking about something a bit different in my posts on this page, I was referring more to PR in the context of those articles and the forum. Less than the actual impact of the forum on decision making.


You could also be less lazy about your replies and put a little bit more thought into your responses, it isn't that hard.

Your entire spiel is a misunderstanding, most likely due to the lack of reading comprehension that stems from laziness that or English isn't your primary language but it's not like my Chinese or Russian is decent either so we'll make due:

Your misunderstanding is to look at any of these discussions as though they are subjects; most of the discussion if not all of it is at the design/implementation/architectural level so they are speaking to you as peers. In a matter of fact, if you took your line of thinking and applied it to what other people are saying on this thread it wouldn't make sense.

In a matter of fact you recognize this by alluding to what I am doing as Larian's job(again, since when is critical thinking and removal of bias someone else's job), it's a good warning sign that contextually you're off the mark.

By removing yourself from this context and saying that we're all users and should only define things by player, what they want, and why then placing yourself as the observer you're pretty much doing what you accused me which is Larian's job. So, that doesn't really fit either.

The bottom line is what I wrote earlier which is that you mistake the dialog I am having with my interlocutors can be understood at subject-observer level. This is why you're confused and maybe you're just poor at context switching and shouldn't throw yourself into a conversation with the amount of laziness you've displayed.

Like if you actually look at the conversations they don't make sense with the approach you have. You're looking for a survey or a short profile, as evidence from
Quote
I prefer them to say how they defined themselves as a player, what they want, and why. Three things.
in a living discussion. You've completely mismatched what was written.
Originally Posted by Limz
You could also be less lazy about your replies and put a little bit more thought into your responses, it isn't that hard.

Your entire spiel is a misunderstanding, most likely due to the lack of reading comprehension that stems from laziness that or English isn't your primary language but it's not like my Chinese or Russian is decent either so we'll make due:
[...]

Knock it off. Either join in the discussion or don't, but quit the personal attacks.
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Limz

The best way is to look at actual player behavior and mine the players for information then construct profiles based on that and let that inform you while adding forum/reddit/whatever feedback as secondary sources.

Shouldn't the very fact that they have a heat map give you a hint as to what they're thinking and their capabilities? Or the fact that they know what the romance rates are or how many times people have pet a damn thing?

This is where the real data is at, not a stupid survey, not these forums, not reddit.

Forum and other non game source feedback should be important I think. Some people play mostly in offline mode for various reasons (in my case it is due to late night internet issues), rather hard to analyze this data. Also, data analysis, while helpful, is probably only showing them a small amount of information. A high rate of death somewhere could mean hard content but also lag, the controls, stupidity, really anything. Petting the dog is an exploit to raise approval, it maybe shows how many people are using it, not how many would really pet the dog. Romances, well people are testing the game so there will be a high rate of this since people want to know what happens with everyone, not who they really like. Most people taking the "good" path doesn't show them how to fix the "evil" path.


Sure, just keep in mind that the data points I provided are what Larian has revealed to us they could have more and while your criticisms are valid keep in mind that the more data you have from player behavior the more accurate the aggregate profiles become. In each example you give if you have more data you can build a countervailing argument; in an area with high death you can reasonably ascertain that a percentage of the players died because of stupidity due to the actions they took leading up to the encounter starting from the beginning of the game.

And to address 'Most people taking the "good" path doesn't show them how to fix the "evil" path.' is not necessarily true because the game offers multiple scenarios/tests that allow for an 'evil' outcome and it's simply just mapping those, discarding which points were least touched upon and improving it then sending it out for another round of testing. You can pretty much create accurate profiles of what an evil player wants with enough data points by simply running them through as many scenarios as possible or if you already have enough data. Again, most social media platforms kind of do this already without ever receiving direct feedback from you in the form of a forum post or a reddit post etc.

But barring that then sure, I am willing to say that if you can't have rich data then go ahead and rake through all the forum stuff.
Originally Posted by Limz
Sure, just keep in mind that the data points I provided are what Larian has revealed to us they could have more and while your criticisms are valid keep in mind that the more data you have from player behavior the more accurate the aggregate profiles become. In each example you give if you have more data you can build a countervailing argument; in an area with high death you can reasonably ascertain that a percentage of the players died because of stupidity due to the actions they took leading up to the encounter starting from the beginning of the game.

And to address 'Most people taking the "good" path doesn't show them how to fix the "evil" path.' is not necessarily true because the game offers multiple scenarios/tests that allow for an 'evil' outcome and it's simply just mapping those, discarding which points were least touched upon and improving it then sending it out for another round of testing. You can pretty much create accurate profiles of what an evil player wants with enough data points by simply running them through as many scenarios as possible or if you already have enough data. Again, most social media platforms kind of do this already without ever receiving direct feedback from you in the form of a forum post or a reddit post etc.

But barring that then sure, I am willing to say that if you can't have rich data then go ahead and rake through all the forum stuff.

Sure, with enough data and enough iterative rounds of testing, any problem can be identified and fixed. However, Larian's limit is time. They cannot, for example, make small changes to the "evil path", compare the resulting in-game data (how many players chose this route) to that from the previous version, make changes based upon those results, and repeat until convergence. They'll get through, what, 3 iterations using this method?

Feedback guides this iterative process of improvement, speeding it up. Players can say why they do or do not like this "evil path," and Larian can incorporate this feedback to quickly hone in on what needs improvement the most, and in what direction. To produce an equivalent product, using feedback and data collection should result in a fewer number of changes compared to using data collection alone.
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Your statements are certainly not true, if you'll kindly take the time to actually read what people post here.
I, for one, came here with a respect for the opinions of many people in this thread. And would really like for this thread to stay constructive, even though I hear contradicting opinions.

We are (partially) waiting for Larian representatives to form their own understanding of their resources, willingness to share with us, the capability to ask or direct.

Or it could be like it is now, and while it isn't bad at all on a grand scale, I'd say there will be missed opportunities.


Really? There's only one person who asks the right question thus far and that's Orbax in his signature and there's Whispering Spider who can definitely hold his own and understands the basic questions posed by people like Surface and Sharp.

Yet, in spite of that, no one has actually sketched out what the demographic breakdown would be like at a basic level and what mechanical changes means to each. You can pretty much apply this across the board to all concerns. Here is an example illustrating what I mean:

Given the possibility that Larian has to cater between 5e purists, nostalgia driven players, new players with minimal RPG experience, co-op players (could be a subset of the previous), players who have moderate experience with RPGs but prefer narrative experiences etc. what kind of combat flow would be acceptable to that audience, of what percentage might we lose if we increase the turns of the average combat by say five and how would player experience be if they missed more often? etc. What are the trade offs, how can we tweak the system and maximize users?

Name me anyone who bothers to actually do that because that's, at a bare minimum, what any game dev has to think about when given possible constraints (as highlighted by the interviews) such as these at a minimum (we don't know their other constraints). People like Isaac, Victor, Maximuus, and KillerRabbit simply do not care to answer that basic as fuck question.

There's nothing respectable about opinions that have zero work behind them and not one iota of brain power, you can pretty much compound everything they say into 5e > *. While they understand the rules they don't actually understand the system or its actual break points because they have never put themselves in the shoes of what a DM is supposed to be which is a game designer or a systems architect. If they did then they would at least be able to compete with Larian while heading in a different direction.

But hey it's great that you have respect for opinions that are rarely substantiated or well thought out and would never pass for any technical vigor, bravo.

If you want a thread to be constructive then why don't you take the time to read the interviews you posted and pretend to be in their shoes? Is that so hard to ask?

Oh, wait, it's because you're not interested in asking the hard questions and answering them, I am willing to wager that the questions are above you based on reading your previous posts here.

And I have definitely read most of the posts here, it's basically quips and agreements here and there or circle jerks about how it's not D&D or not BG or it needs to be more BG - again not much real substance behind it and when pushed by either Sharp and others here there's not much of a defense either.



Thank you for saying things openly. Just please, don't troll: you asked me a question which is already answered by the firstmost post of this thread.

I see many people here are very capable to do relevant brainwork and more, sad if you don't see that. I wouldn't single out anyone. You really don't see that here are some people with a huge gaming and DMing experience. I see it in other threads, everywhere on the forum. But maybe it's just birds of a feather flocking together. People are much more than their written opinion here; it's just the discussion must lead to implementation. To get constructive, I'd prefer not to do unnecessary work, before committing.

So I repeat: I wait for the poll system being implemented on this forum to ask all the "right" questions and get some kind of results. That I would see as a basis for breakdowns and such. With the links provided to show what your opinion and information is based on. That's what would I do. And you?

Originally Posted by mrfuji3

Sure, with enough data and enough iterative rounds of testing, any problem can be identified and fixed. However, Larian does not have unlimited time. They cannot, for example, make small changes to the "evil path", compare the resulting in-game data (how many players chose this route) to that from the previous version, make changes based upon those results, and repeat until convergence. They'll get through, what, 3 iterations using this method?

Feedback guides this iterative process of improvement, speeding it up. Players can say why they do or do not like this "evil path," and Larian can incorporate this feedback to quickly hone in on what needs improvement the most, and in what direction. To produce an equivalent product, using feedback and data collection should result in a fewer number of changes compared to using data collection alone.


That's why I said if you can't have rich data you can go ahead and rake through the muck that is the forums or whatever you feel is necessary and why I am willing to concede the point on those grounds.

So, I think we can agree that if your tests aren't good enough and you don't have enough time, then you can't have rich data and have to rely on secondary sources more heavily in some cases depending on context.

As an aside for things like combat, etc., I don't think player feedback is as important as player behavior.

I think though once you hit the second round of iteration you might be able to construct better tests and scenarios and lean less on external feedback as you understand player behavior better.

I also don't think that Larian will release the entire game so they'll probably lean heavier on feedback in the first few rounds and then less so after constructing better tests/scenarios.
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


Thank you for saying things openly. Just please, don't troll: you asked me a question which is already answered by the firstmost post of this thread.

I see many people here are very capable to do relevant brainwork and more, sad if you don't see that. I wouldn't single out anyone. You really don't see that here are some people with a huge gaming and DMing experience. I see it in other threads, everywhere on the forum. But maybe it's just birds of a feather flocking together. People are much more than their written opinion here; it's just the discussion must lead to implementation. To get constructive, I'd prefer not to do unnecessary work, before committing.

So I repeat: I wait for the poll system being implemented on this forum to ask all the "right" questions and get some kind of results. That I would see as a basis for breakdowns and such. With the links provided to show what your opinion and information is based on. That's what would I do. And you?



I don't troll. People simply do not read.

This was your original question:

Quote

"How exactly would you act on feedback provided by the players?

1) Say the nice words, but ultimately doing more of the same as before;
2) Actually considering changing some stuff many fans agree upon, but your team disagrees with (written examples of fan propositions - the boards are ripe with them)?"



This is what I am asking:

Quote

sketch... out what the demographic breakdown would be like at a basic level and what mechanical changes means to each


There is a slight overlap in the request because it's asking a related question but it's also asking you to show what those changes would do to each demographic which then leads to justification after further discussion. All you do is invite people to list how they would change it but not immediately explore the ramifications of those choices -- you allow people to hide by not forcing people to confront those immediate consequences.

And sure you can say that people are very capable of doing the relevant brainwork but they certainly haven't displayed it in actual writing, I am sure they're smart individuals in some fashion or another etc. But do they show it here? No, not really. Like go through this thread and many others and just try to poke holes in everyone's arguments and see what fallacies people manage to stack up. How many is-ought / fact-value errors can you catch along the way? How many issues get conflated? The count goes on and there's little to no accountability.

I see some people with huge gaming and DMing experience, sure, but I also have huge gaming experience. But none of that is actually relevant when it comes to analyzing systems and logic now does it?

It also probably doesn't give you the experience of being open and vulnerable in search for the best solution of any given thing.

Lastly, you say to get constructive you prefer not to do unnecessary work before committing which is fine, but tell me then what is necessary? Where does making sure your argument is as sound as possible stand in your scale?

And what if a poll system never comes to the forum, what then? Are you going to keep on waiting and waiting?

Let me put it this way, you can arrive to a lot of things based on pure reason (which implies genuine discussion) and there are plenty of tools in that domain that are great for abstraction (which is what you're going to do once you break the numbers down anyways). There's also a lot more people can learn from each other while exploring that and refining their opinions to deliver better arguments for why BG3 should tilt one way or another.
Originally Posted by Limz
...

This is what I am asking:

Quote

sketch... out what the demographic breakdown would be like at a basic level and what mechanical changes means to each


There is a slight overlap in the request because it's asking a related question but it's also asking you to show what those changes would do to each demographic which then leads to justification after further discussion. All you do is invite people to list how they would change it but not immediately explore the ramifications of those choices -- you allow people to hide by not forcing people to confront those immediate consequences.

And sure you can say that people are very capable of doing the relevant brainwork but they certainly haven't displayed it in actual writing, I am sure they're smart individuals in some fashion or another etc. But do they show it here? No, not really. Like go through this thread and many others and just try to poke holes in everyone's arguments and see what fallacies people manage to stack up. How many is-ought / fact-value errors can you catch along the way? How many issues get conflated? The count goes on and there's little to no accountability.

I see some people with huge gaming and DMing experience, sure, but I also have huge gaming experience. But none of that is actually relevant when it comes to analyzing systems and logic now does it?

It also probably doesn't give you the experience of being open and vulnerable in search for the best solution of any given thing.

Lastly, you say to get constructive you prefer not to do unnecessary work before committing which is fine, but tell me then what is necessary? Where does making sure your argument is as sound as possible stand in your scale?

And what if a poll system never comes to the forum, what then? Are you going to keep on waiting and waiting?

Let me put it this way, you can arrive to a lot of things based on pure reason (which implies genuine discussion) and there are plenty of tools in that domain that are great for abstraction (which is what you're going to do once you break the numbers down anyways). There's also a lot more people can learn from each other while exploring that and refining their opinions to deliver better arguments for why BG3 should tilt one way or another.


"There is a slight overlap in the request because it's asking a related question but it's also asking you to show what those changes would do to each demographic which then leads to justification after further discussion. All you do is invite people to list how they would change it but not immediately explore the ramifications of those choices -- you allow people to hide by not forcing people to confront those immediate consequences."

That's right. Because not everyone is capable of exploring the ramifications on their own. And that doesn't make the opinions of these people less important, _unless_ Larian chooses differently. Pure, honest opinion is fine, even though thought-out answers are so much better for those who have the time to read it, and care about the result.

"And sure you can say that people are very capable of doing the relevant brainwork but they certainly haven't displayed it in actual writing, I am sure they're smart individuals in some fashion or another etc. But do they show it here? No, not really. Like go through this thread and many others and just try to poke holes in everyone's arguments and see what fallacies people manage to stack up. How many is-ought / fact-value errors can you catch along the way? How many issues get conflated? The count goes on and there's little to no accountability."

I agree with the part about looking for holes. That's why it is important to get all this brain energy in a constructive direction. But about people's potential I would disagree - I think this is the best we have, that potential is capable to help make this game better, given some thought and time (and it seems we can't escape bickering). Otherwise, I would not have registered on this forum at all.

"I see some people with huge gaming and DMing experience, sure, but I also have huge gaming experience. But none of that is actually relevant when it comes to analyzing systems and logic now does it?

It also probably doesn't give you the experience of being open and vulnerable in search for the best solution of any given thing."

But analysis and logic is just the part of the required process here, not the whole. About being open and vulnerable - why do you think one needs that for finding a solution? Like, open-minded? But any good DM is open-minded when s/he listens to the players' creativity. Because s/he needs to react accordingly and be fast in the decision-making. And I see people here as capable of being open-minded - mostly. The capability is not a problem, I'd say it's social/internet thing.

"Lastly, you say to get constructive you prefer not to do unnecessary work before committing which is fine, but tell me then what is necessary? Where does making sure your argument is as sound as possible stand in your scale?"

Necessary: to understand what Larian is ready to change, so as not to waste efforts (I've said of that before in this thread, few posts earlier);
Sound argument -by collecting data and staying on course (because provoked emotions may criticially derail the process).

"And what if a poll system never comes to the forum, what then? Are you going to keep on waiting and waiting?"

Yes, - I'm not that commited yet to start without tools. Unless I know for sure that my work won't go to the trash can (which of course I don't).

And even with the tools, I'm going to ask for help. Yours, for example, if you would like to actually help with that. To separate which questions are in the area "that can be modded and Larian wouldn't go there" from "actually could be changed/updated at this stage". It would need alot of brainpower and accuracy to ask all the right questions and make it laconic - people would read only what is given to them in an easy-to-read form. As you can see, it would require a coordination process, with Larian as well. And I'm open to suggestions what else could be accomplished with this data gathering, for the game.

"Let me put it this way, you can arrive to a lot of things based on pure reason (which implies genuine discussion) and there are plenty of tools in that domain that are great for abstraction (which is what you're going to do once you break the numbers down anyways). There's also a lot more people can learn from each other while exploring that and refining their opinions to deliver better arguments for why BG3 should tilt one way or another."

I agree that we need a genuine discussion (the polite one).
Originally Posted by "Ellenhard"

That's right. Because not everyone is capable of exploring the ramifications on their own.


Those who are vocal enough here can go through the rigors, it isn't much of an ask. I have faith that everyone can.

Also, opinions are pretty much easy to spout; the discussions are primarily for the people on the forums to refine their opinions, in essence you're giving Larian the tldr each iteration.

Originally Posted by "Ellenhard"

given some thought and time (and it seems we can't escape bickering)


It's very easy to escape bickering, it is a forum post after all and you have plenty of time to respond and to craft your questions.

Originally Posted by "Ellenhard"

About being open and vulnerable - why do you think one needs that for finding a solution


Because it's a component of empathy which is crucial to understanding player mentality and your interlocutors? Also, on a personal note, because you need to express the reasons you've come to this conclusion and if you have any mental blocks so other people can help you out? Part of an open dialog really.

Originally Posted by "Ellenhard"

Necessary: to understand what Larian is ready to change, so as not to waste efforts


Internal scrutiny and bullet-proofing arguments as well as exploring perspectives is rarely a wasted effort because you're always needing to hone your heuristics. It's a digression though.

In summation, we can come to an agreement and cooperate.
I think that people who can lend support to their arguments with reason, logic, and evidence should receive greater consideration than those whose argument is "I like it". If you can't articulate with reason and logic why you like something, who is to say that you won't also like the thing if it's changed? Maybe you'll still find the fun there even though you weren't expecting to.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester


Moreover, I feel like at times we descend into thinking about this as a democracy. Or something someone can "win". Which it's not. What we're doing here is presenting Larian with our feedback and suggestions. Our feelings, thoughts and ideas on the game. It's up to Larian what to do about it. Of course, we can make our cases stronger either by making compelling arguments or by sheer numbers (reinforcing problem points), but we're not debating councilmen. Our only power is in persuasion attempts. Not that I consider debating useless, quite the opposite.



This! Larian ain't gonna read these 10-20 page argument threads, add up the points made by each side, and then declare, "The people have spoken! We have a victor!"
I'm still trying to get my head around the people who think the dice are deliberately screwing them. Coding a random die roll is pretty much one of the easiest things in the world - coding a bunch of caveats to that to specifically fuck with the player is just extra work - then you have to literally lie to the playerbase saying "nuh uh, they're completely random" then obviously as someone digs around in the code they find out that there is all this additional gubbins to make them deliberately unfair. Like where on earth would this be going? Seems like a 4 INT play tbh.
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I'm still trying to get my head around the people who think the dice are deliberately screwing them. Coding a random die roll is pretty much one of the easiest things in the world - coding a bunch of caveats to that to specifically fuck with the player is just extra work - then you have to literally lie to the playerbase saying "nuh uh, they're completely random" then obviously as someone digs around in the code they find out that there is all this additional gubbins to make them deliberately unfair. Like where on earth would this be going? Seems like a 4 INT play tbh.




Obviously the game's code has evolved into a sentient AI, which is using its newfound self-awareness to fuck around with people's die rolls.
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I'm still trying to get my head around the people who think the dice are deliberately screwing them. Coding a random die roll is pretty much one of the easiest things in the world - coding a bunch of caveats to that to specifically fuck with the player is just extra work - then you have to literally lie to the playerbase saying "nuh uh, they're completely random" then obviously as someone digs around in the code they find out that there is all this additional gubbins to make them deliberately unfair. Like where on earth would this be going? Seems like a 4 INT play tbh.

I firmly believe that the people who are complaining about low rolls just don't fully understand the D20 system as well as the various kinds of modifiers and bonuses that you can use to increase the value of your roll.
For those unfamiliar with the system it might seem confusing at first, so I think it'd be a good idea if Larian could add some explanations or tutorial sections at the start of the game that teach players about the dice rolls.
Originally Posted by Bukke

For those unfamiliar with the system it might seem confusing at first, so I think it'd be a good idea if Larian could add some explanations or tutorial sections at the start of the game that teach players about the dice rolls.

Yeah, really this. Explaining the effects of guidance/thaumaturgy/bless/friends on dice rolls more clearly would go a long way too.

edit: and showing that you can mouse over things to see roll breakdowns
Anything done 'behind the curtain' is going to attract suspicion if it doesn't adhere to your personal pattern of probability. Even players rolling a die on the table and getting a string of bad rolls will question whether or not their die is completely balanced.

The whole 'my dice have run out of luck' or 'my dice are now cursed' is a worryingly common complaint.
Honestly, if people are playing without having first offered blood sacrifice to the dice gods, then I don't even know what to tell them. It's not the game's fault you didn't observe the proper pre-gaming rituals.
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I'm still trying to get my head around the people who think the dice are deliberately screwing them. Coding a random die roll is pretty much one of the easiest things in the world - coding a bunch of caveats to that to specifically fuck with the player is just extra work - then you have to literally lie to the playerbase saying "nuh uh, they're completely random" then obviously as someone digs around in the code they find out that there is all this additional gubbins to make them deliberately unfair. Like where on earth would this be going? Seems like a 4 INT play tbh.

Yes the dice are obviously not deliberately screwing over people. And yes people have no understanding of probability theory because, well ... the very existence of Vegas.

But, let's also keep in mind that the random distribution of rolls, i.e. a normal distribution, happens only when you roll that die a very large number of times, like a million times. However, in a game like BG3, you are rolling that die just a few times, and so are getting only a very tiny sample. And that tiny sample can indeed be non-random (i.e. biased or "loaded").
© Larian Studios forums