Get your voice heard.

The last thread that encouraged people to leave reviews was locked because the responses to the game weren't overtly positive and didn't reflect well on the sad state of the game. But that thread is "being reviewed" and I'm sure that there's an active mod discussion going on to determine whether or not any rules were broken, and it certainly wasn't just locked to sweep the overwhelming negative responses and encouragement of honest critical reviews under the rug.

I have already left a positive review, after 30 hours of playing. Then I played for more than 100 hours and I don't plan to change my review yet. As far as I know in steam BG3 has mostly positive reviews.

I'm not telling folks what to say, but my faith in feedback and change coming from this forum is low.

Get on reddit, get on Steam.

I think the last thread was locked because people were getting the idea that the OP of that thread was encouraging review bombing.

I like what's in the game so far, so this thread is a reminder for me to leave a review.

I wonder if there's an review option that says "it has promise but they need to spend more time on the improvements I want"

Thank you for reminding me to update my review . Now I love BG3 even more.

That's what A LOT of positive review are saying. Yes because it's impressive to see 85%+ of positive review, but if you read the "potential" is often reviewed... Not the current experience.

I'll wait to give a review because at the moment... I could give a positive review because the game is beautifull and full of promises... But a bad review could also suit my opinion because it doesn't feel like BG at all, because many great things in D&D just suck in the game and because combats are really really poor.

Im in the same shoes, I did not give a review YET as on one hand graphics are beautiful and game has huge potential but i could not give a positive one as i found several gameplay elements (mostly tied to combat) to be a little bit bland and repetitive (which can still change, its early access). I wait under they tweak/polish gameplay a little bit more and give a review then.

Do they keep the reviews from EA once the game releases fully?

Yes, but they're marked as "review during EA" and they might reset the score as only counting post release.

As not even the first chapter is complete and the game is far from complete and available for anyone to play, a "game review" at this time is essentially poppycock--because of right now there is no game to review. Why would I want to review unfinished chapter 1 and pretend I'm writing a game review when it is not yet possible to play BG3? Whatever I would write would not be a review of the game--not even close.

34,345 reviews and 88% positive. If people are trying to review bomb this game on Steam they're either vastly outnumbered or doing a shit job of it. Thanks for reminding me to leave a positive review though!

In all honesty, I've been holding off on reviewing the game because it is in early access.

I would give metrics such as

Music: A (not an A+ only because there is not enough of it. Sometimes the Underdark is really quiet and I can't tell if it's a bug.)
Visuals: B+ (For early access everything looks great or is heading that way.)
Voice Acting: A (The quality and quantity of it is blowing my mind.)
Narrative: B+ (I'm worried we may lose plausibility down the road, as long as the story stays plausible it's an A.)
Combat: D+ (Larian has put a high bar with their prior games, combat is currently too repetitive because of generic mechanics being overpowered, etc.)

Most passerby are saying they're doing great for early access. And my early access review wouldn't change that.

These forums are just the tiniest snippet of overall impressions, and if the comments present here were all people had to go by, they'd think that this was the game of the century.
The overall perception of the game on the other 99% of the internet is that it's a lackluster and poorly-managed waste of resources that lacks direction.
I, and countless others, have left actual feedback in places where it matters, not just in this place surrounded by cheerleaders and unwavering optimists.

This is one of the more critical areas of the game's community. I think it's a good mix of people who want the game to be better but are critical, and people who really like it. The reddit has the more optimistic section of the fanbase. And BG3 has overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam, and did pretty well against professional reviewers for an Early Access game, so I sincerely doubt that 99% of people dislike it. Come off it, mate.

You lost me at the childish insults.

Still, after 630 plus hours (I blame lockdown) happily spent in the game, I suppose I should leave a positive review. Nothing like someone being rude to entrench a mildly held view into a hard one after all

the edge in this thread is real lol

Of course we are not reviewing the game. Thankfully what we have is not remotely close to even a beta.

However that doesn't mean a review cannot be left.

Movement is flawed.
The implementation of 5e is both flawed, and incomplete.
The Spell balancing is completely off.
The Action economy is completely off.

That's information worth noting before someone drops $60 into a black hole.

Yet amazingly the current Steam User Reviews are Very Positive and all the latest posts in the BG3 subReddit are all from players who are enjoying the game.


You don't need to appeal to imaginary "Countless others" to express your opinion.


If you don't like the the game give feedback and suggest changes. That is what Early Access is for.

Not mocking you or anyone, but what are y'all doing for 200+ hours in a 20 hours demo? Genuinely curious. I remember getting on a crazy Witcher 2 spree a few years back but after the 6th or so consecutive game i was done with life lmao

They are testing out every class and every possible dialogue option. Not to mention different tactics. I can see 200+ hours. I can’t do it myself but it’s very possible.

Exploring, experimenting and trying to experience all the developers have given us.

I've spent 100 hours just on Warlock, Wizard, and Ranger.

You folks are amazing. I know I played a bunch offline, but not even close to 100.

Are you D&D players? Because I know what should be there, and what simply isn't up to par, so why test it again?

I'm in two 5e campaigns (High-Elf Wizard, Half-Orc Druid) and I'm setting up to DM Candlekeep Mysteries.

There's a lot more to the game than just combat, and I'm open to Larian winning me over with homebrew if it's good.

I've never played DnD.

I played for different classes, evil/good way and I played only with Astarion to open all his dialogues. Because they don't open if you're traveling with other companions. Especially if you're traveling with a Shadow.

Every time I find something new, for example, I only recently learned that it is possible to poison the booze in goblin camp. I just never knew about this method.

+ I had to replay game after patch 3 because it deleted my saves. So I have 169h now.

Agree 100%. I'm far more focused on and excited by how Larian is trying to implement interactivity and reactivity into the game. I honestly think in terms of top down RPGs, it's one of the first time someone has done so much in those areas.

To me, that's far more important than the ruleset implementation. The world, the character and narratives is far more important to me.

It's a work in progress, but I'm seeing tons of potential in that regard.

WE WON BY A LOT !

Idk wut this guy mean.

On this forum, people are very critical about game, I have never seen more criticism than here. And this is a criticism of the level "this game is not like BG2". Outside of this forum, I only see very good reviews. Especially from players who did not play old BG and did not play DnD. And this is not a small %, believe me. In many countries, this game was not even advertised as a "DnD" game. So for us, it's just a video game in RPG genre. And for its genre, it really feels very good. Given the fact, of course, that this is the early access.

I don't know what "sources" he is talking about, but in steam and on YouTube I see only good things about this game. Where is this 99% of the internet???

I strongly believe (with no way to actually prove that) that people here on Larian forums will generally have MUCH more hours played on average than your average Steam/YouTube/Reddit/Twitch reviewer/streamer. Just consider all those "Joined: Oct-Dec 2020" people (like you or me), creating an account just to provide feedback on this one specific game.

And that's the thing, lots of the issues and problems (that are not obvious bugs/glitches) start bothering people AFTER their first playthrough. Especially the combat system starts showing in its naked half-baked abusable glory only once you figure out most of its ins and outs - I kinda enjoyed it for the bigger part of my 1st EA playthrough. But if the whole game were like that, I would probably start suffering in Act II and probably set game to easy/story mode in Act III to skip combat parts as quickly as possible... Same goes for camera, interface (+inventory management) and party controls. It's OK for the first ~20 hours of the game (especially considering EA), but it gets tedious quickly and once you realize the game might take 100 hours+ and that Larian has given us no indication (in a community post OR actual patch - save for the companions jumping that got fixed in patch 3) that they are going to improve these things...

Now you're just trolling...

Don't think there should be a choice. Just do both.

Really? I am not some 20ies year player. I did play BG1 and BG2 a long time ago indeed. That said many that did play BG1 and BG2 were not adults when they played example 12-15 (I keep my age secret) years old I did play with my brother in LAN at my parents home and that you usually do when you are not adult.

You can check my taste in music in thread
"BG1 & BG2 worth it while waiting ?"
and I would say most people would say it not ancient music that I like for sure. Oh and in martial arts people still respect me I am fit.

I am D&D and BG gamer... and there are lots really lots of people who have tried D&D paper at least some version at some point in their lives.
Here is my True verdict of BG3:
+ Story is good.
+ Graphics are good.
+ Combat is fairly good.
+ Music and sound effects are good.
+ System requirements fairly ok. I mean at least lots less then example Cyperpunk 2077.
+ Support turn based combat.
+ Have a bit D&D feeling.
+ Support solo play and up to maximum 4 players cooperative play.
+ Ok companions.
Neutral: To early to judge it is ALPHA and only part of Act 1 and not all classes or Cleric domains that exist in players handbook are not released at least yet.
Neutral: Perhaps some bugs exist, but nothing game breaking for me right now.
Neutral: Early Access is only in Normal difficulty setting. It would be interesting to test other difficulty settings.
Neutral: I do hope we can get more good alignment companions in Act 2 for a change.
- Camera control is average at best. Seriously? WOW MMO camera control: 5/5 stars, Nevewinter MMO camera control 4/5 stars... Baldurs Gate 3 camera control 3/5 stars and yes I know you can in Combat press O and get tactical overview, but even that feels slightly clumsy.
- Well I do understand that some D&D players would it like to more according to D&D rules. Doctor give me some medicine please? Doctor: Naah I have played BG3. Here eat this apple if you still are sick then eat some more food!
- While I do like turnbased combat why not give option to voluntary unpause combat?
My score: 8.5/10.

Is it quoted to be only 20 hours or is this just something you made up in your head?

My solo play took (been a while) roughly 40-60 hours, I had a multi game with couple buddies don't recall how long that lasted, and what specter mentioned testing. I have roughly 180 hours now and there was a thread on the forums for people that made it passed 100 hours I think.

Edit*
For the OP topic, I'll hold off on the review till full release (That's if I even do a review, normally don't). Game is overall entertaining and I am a Larian fan, doubt it'll end up being like Greedfall. So if I do make one it'll be positive.

I think steam has been lost to the trolls. Sure, leave the review if you like, but I always take steam reviews with a grain of salt.

When I'm deciding whether I want to spend money on game I give the greatest weight to the recommendations made by other people who like the same things I do. Apparently I need to play Disco Elysium -- even though it doesn't look like my kind of game.

It's just ridiculous, this is what I actually saw on forum, not trolling.
The point is that I don't understand where is that "99% of the Internet".

Yes, some of these people spent about 20 hours on EA, left a good review and forgot about it before release. So what difference if it make them satisfied? I mean this dude write like on this forum we're too kind for this game, but it's not true. That what I mean.

I'm not saying that this "99% of the Internet is right", many things that are discussed here are correct. I'm just saying that many outside of this forum, just happy with game.




None of my friends or colleagues have ever played DnD. We've all heard of this game, but we've never played it. Please, your experience is not universal. This is also affected by the country in which you were born. So yea, rly.

That is the most stupid statement I have heard for a long time indeed. As for each country in Europe now I do not know what they play, but I doubt a colleague will come to you on break and say hey I played D&D 10 years ago or I am now playing.

When I come to a workplace do you think I have D&D mentioned in my CV or that I talk about with my work colleagues? No.

I also have friends that are not into gaming at all at any platform and a some friends that if they play they use console like Playstation or Xbox.

Personally I have never played newest D&D 5th edition but I have now read through Players Handbook DD5th for this game.
None of my friends have ever played any Larian released game. I played DOS2, but never finished it.

Now my brother and one friend of my mine have told me they want to play Baldurs Gate 3 with me because it is Dungeons Dragons. However they are not so interested they want to buy it while it is in Early Access.

Roughly 40% of my friends have played D&D. 0% of my friends have played any Larian released game.
If you take all D&D releases the amount of players that have played any version of them that exceed DOS2 players by far.

I was talking about friends, too. But you know what's really stupid? Discuss something based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, BASED ONLY ON YOUR LIFE. You initially started speaking exclusively from the "my experience" position, which is why I provided you with "my experience", like exact opposite. I was just trying to show you how inappropriate this is. I repeat: YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIVERSAL. Stop thinking that all or even most people are like you and your friends. Because it's not, it's just you. That's why I won't continue this dialogue.

Next plz

You are the one that have been called Troll on this thread (not by me and this was an observation I did see it), but I am beginning to understand why. Yeah discussing with you does not make sense first you mention friends and colleagues. Well then you claim only friends. Every friend of mine specially those who do not like games at all we share other interests example sports and movies, social meetings example dinner or party they do not know I have played Dungeons Dragons.

Your experience is not universal either by that logic.

Thank God now you understand that. In discussions, personal experience is not used as a weighty argument.
Some man called me a troll because I told the truth, some ppl here say things like "this game is not like BG2", if he didn't see it, it's not my problem, I saw it. He had zero logical reason to call me a "troll".

Nobody on this particular thread has said " "this game is not like BG2". If you mean entire forums somewhere yeah probably someone might have said it at some thread that I can believe.

Most that say it I doubt they require some graphics as BG2 (though yes they could do it also) but perhaps want other aspects of that game. You could unpause example combat in BG1 and BG2. Why force turnbased combat on some super easy encounter? Voluntary unpause the game would be great improvement it would speed up things. It is more then that they might complain it is not enough close to D&D rules. Despite my negative comments I gave my review for this game 8.5/10 which is pretty good. If you think I hate BG3 you are wrong.

I never wrote that was in this thread. But it was on this forum. It's was like specific requests that sounded "this is not a duplicate of BG2 with high graphics! very bad! very unexpected", not exactly the same, but very similar. There's no point in discussing about it here. I used this as an example, but I wrote full post on a completely different theme. The guy called me a troll because of one short phrase. HUH

So after many of us tried to explain you what the references to BG2 means (with exemples)... You're still stuck thinking lots of players just want a copy/paste ?

Considering what others say to understand their opinions and other points of view is usually constructive.
But it looks like your (wrong) "truth" is the only thing you consider.

Maybe that's why some called you "a troll".

Kindly stop all the incivility and name calling, and accept that people have different opinions. You may not agree with them, but do not attack the poster (including calling people trolls) because of that disagreement.

Well said good analysis this...
What many of us want is more according to D&D rules. In BG1 and BG2 you could unpause and pause the combat at fly. Well not to mention camera control is not very well done in BG3 and rather average.
Despite all this I rank BG3 as 8.5/10 because it is so excellent done otherwise graphics, music, sound, story and fairly ok combat and at least more or less D&D. Support for 1-4 player cooperative play. Yeah I get some would wish for 6 characters party as in BG1 and BG2, but at least 4 is better then Neverwinter Nights 1 character to control.

No I do not need some Ray tracing graphics and skyhigh system requirements for maximum graphics that would come with that. Graphics are fine for me in this game!

You again.

I even used red text in another thread when someone said "graphics", implying a similar graphic style to BG2 that he expected in BG3 or somth like that, which is unlikely, given that it is a different engine and a different developer. I hope he didn't mean the quality of the graphics, right? Just did not specify, so we will assume that he was talking about the style when he wrote literally just "graphics are not like in BG2". Yea I think it's not fine. This is my opinion. I consider it a quibble.

And again my first post in this thread was not about this and I used this phrase as one example out of many. But you keep telling me off for saying that, seriously? Without even delving into what it was written for?

Are you kidding me? Now this thread is about me and some men who took my phrase out of context. Too cool for me.

The main idea of my first post was that BG3 is criticized more on forum than outside it. And not about what exactly criticize, I used an example that I personally think is the strangest. But this is not the main idea of my post, most of all I was interested in "where did you see more criticism than here???". That's what my post is about.

Do you understand now? And when you understand it, maybe you stop talking about it?

You again.

Ok now you have said you only meant graphics. Yes your logic does not make any sense to me do you understand?
You act like a FANBOY of DOS games and BG3.

Forums are here so people can give valuable feedback to the Baldurs Gate 3. I do like BG3 after all I gave it score 8.5/10 that said it is very uneven have great graphic, music, story, fairly ok combat. That said I could be much better!

Well so what if score on steam is very good now mostly? They do not even give a rating score in Steam.
It is in ALPHA? What people buy the game first? Those who likely like it most and can afford to pay the price.

What could be improved in BG3?
+ Voluntary unpause&pause the combat like that you can do in BG1 and BG2. I doubt they will do this though they would need to make some kind of AI to companions so they can a bit control themselves.
+ Make camera control and controlling better at best it average 3/5 the camera control.
+ Support for 1-6 player like BG1 and BG2... that would be more the 1-4. I doubt they will do this.
+ Make it a bit more like D&D rules.
+ Having in Early Access all classes in Players Handbook and all Cleric domains would be nice and if there are going to be more races for full release then to release them also.
+ Make Elves a bit more look like Elves.
+ Fix all bugs.
+ Add some good alignment characters hopefully at least in Act 2 and not only Evil or neutral characters more or less.
(((+ Nude women... when sex.) Ok this was not in BG1 and BG2 that is true.)))

You go over and over again saying it is only me that want to this when many what this (ok I do not know how many want nude women) . Yes I like this it is 8.5/10, but if you 10/10 if they would do all those thing for me. Finally if they do some of those (if not all then at least 4-5+ of them) then this game could be like 9/10 to me.

It feels like a lot of people could learn how to disagree politely Just my opinion though

https://www.speakconfidentenglish.com/disagree-in-english/

You might notice that "YOU AGAIN" isn't one of those suggested options.

Agreed wholeheartedly! Can't we all settle this over a nice glass of firewine? Just... ignore the tadpole, it's decorative.

I think it's a perfect way to show disagreement. Particularly if you follow it up with "How dare you interrupt my plans once more!"

Well I have not used any name calling as far as I remember in these forums. Though I agree it sounds a bit aggessive way to start a conservation, but I was teased by previous comment before mine that used it. I can avoid to use that in this forum if nobody else use it again in this forum. By all means fine by me lets not use that aggressive comment in future.

+1

Especially when these strange and random arguments on some minor aspect of someone's post pulls topics so far from the OP.

Forgive me but who would write a review on a alpha state early access?
Not a single one of the current reviews can be taken serious. Neither the good nor the bad.

2 third of the game haven’t even be seen yet.
All someone can do is state an impression and never a review.
And the impression right now is shiny on the outside (damn the game looks like a true gem). The further you dive Into mechanics however the more foul the game becomes.

It’s like biting into the most beautiful and delicious apple ever seen and not tasting the worm 🐛 inside

That's why all of the steam reviews are clearly marked as Early Access reviews.
My steam review means that I'm very happy with direction and design ideas Larian took to create this great game.


Great! It's delicious AND nutritious .

If they can sell it, it can be reviewed.

Why would you leave a Steam review for an unfinished game?

So that items like.

Movement.
5e implementation. (Advantage/Disadvantage)
Spells being balanced on analytics.

Can be highlighted, before Larian locks in on a sub optimal solution.

And then, once your dreams are true and everything YOU want is completed to YOUR satisfaction....

Potential Buyer A reads those negative reviews and decides not to buy the game.

Whoo Hoo...Mission Accomplished !! Not!!!

That's why reviews can and should be updated by the reviewer after significant changes have been made to the game. Also, reviews from Early Access are clearly marked as such and Steam also made it a thing to show recent review scores seperated from the overall average score.

They are marked as EA...

So that people will know what they are buying.

OP I've read your post about leaving a Steam review. I've also read many other posts where you've made it clear that you don't really like the way this game is going. My question is what exactly are people supposed to say to make you happy when they write their review on Steam? I've played the Early Access game and I liked what I saw. Should I post a positive review or do you only want reviews that agree with your opinion of the game? It seems to me that you're trying to promote review bombing to put this game in a negative light because you aren't happy with it. That's not right. You're entitled to your opinions but that doesn't mean that you're right and everybody else is wrong. In fact if we go by ratings and review scores this game is going in the right direction. There's only a small minority such as yourself who seems to have a problem with this game.

So what if it isn't exactly 5e rules. Bioware, Obsidian and Troika didn't implement the rules exactly when they created BG1, BG2, NWN, NWN 2 and ToE. There are feats and skills in those games that you won't find in any D&D rulebook. Things get adapted and changed when converting from a tabletop rpg to a computer rpg. So what if people think Solasta follows 5e rules better than BG3 does? To me all that says is that different developers went different ways in converting 5e rules to the computer. As for BG3 seeming a lot like DOS2 that's absurd. The same game engine was most likely used to create both games. Just as Bioware did with BG1 and BG2. Obsidian used what Bioware already had and refined it to create NWN2. Nothing wrong with that.

I've played BG3 and DOS2. There are similarities as far as game functions go but the rules are definitely different between the two games. As for BG3 following 5e rules, I believe that for the most part the game does follow 5e rules. I make allowances for where it deviates because I'm not a game developer or programmer but I do know that sometimes changes need to be made to convert from tabletop to computer. People had no problem when Bioware did the same thing with NWN.

My point with all of this goes back to your OP telling people to leave a Steam review. I like the direction the game is going. If it ends up with the same kind of editing tools that DO2 has this game will have the same type of longevity that NWN has. Let me ask you again. I'm ready to post a review. What exactly do you want me to say? Are positive reviews allowed? Or are you only looking for review and opinions that you agree with?

@Grinch -- what exactly do you think "review bombing" means?

I know what it means. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the OP had in mind too. Over a game that's not even finished because they don't like the way the direction that the game is going. Why review bomb with negative reviews? Why not just move on and find another game. There are plenty of games out there.

What's happening is that a small minority don't like this game for whatever reason and they think that their opinions are the only opinions that matter. Like I said in my post. I'm writing a review. What does the OP want me to say? The implication is that anybody writing a review is supposed to write a negative review. All because the OP doesn't like the game. He's telling everybody to write reviews. He may as well tell them what to say too.

That's was my point. He's trying to start a review bombing campaign to trash an Early Access game that he's not happy with. He may as well tell everybody what to say so that it agrees with his opinion. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want me reviewing the game because I don't think he would be happy with my positive review. Good D&D computer games are a rare breed. In my opinion this game has the potential to be a very good D&D computer game just like NWN was. That's my opinion based just on Early Access. This game is 1000 times better than Sword Coast Legends. Like I said if they release editing tools like they did for DOS2 this game will have the same longevity that NWN has had.

Dude, leaving a negative review for a game you have a negative opinion of is not review bombing. It's being honest and helping your fellow consumers come to an informed decision. Reviews are not just for when you like something.

No, I'm not looking to start review bombing.

I look around here, and would want the many reviews and concerns around the basic topics (movement, combat, 5e, lack of communication) stated not just here, but on steam, reddit, wherever Larian will see it.

That's exactly what you're trying to do when you tell everybody to leave a Steam review. The implication is that you expect people to leave negative reviews. Concern about the basic topics is translation for the things that you don't like. What if I don't have those concerns? Should I write my positive review or are you only looking for negative reviews to show up everywhere? I don't have a problem with the current state of the game because I realize that the game is in Early Access and has a long way to go before it gets to a final release state.

You don't post concerns about a Early Access game in a negative review. Not if you want the game to succeed. You send your concerns to the developer. That doesn't mean they have an obligation to respond to you or do things your way. I'm right with you posting a negative review if the release version of the game has problems but not now. I like what I see from this Early Access version and I have no doubt that it will get better. My point is there's no need to post negative reviews anywhere. Like I said concerns should be sent to the developer not posted in a negative review. But hey you paid your money the same as I did. If you have $60 to throw away posting negative reviews because things aren't going your way then more power to you. I like what I see and the only type of review I could post would be positive.

As I said in my other post, good D&D computer games are a rare breed. This game has the potential to be a great game. But you have to give it and the developer's a chance. This game is already 1000 times better than the final release of Sword Coast Legends was. That was the last great hope for a good D&D game. Think about it. Times are good if this game and Solasta both live up to their potential. When was the last time we got two good D&D games at the same time?

But that's not what you're doing. You're leaving a negative review for an Early Access game which is still under development and not finished. You have no idea how the final product will turn out. All you know is that there was one or more things that you didn't like in Early Access. Things are subject to change from Early Access to release. So all you're really doing by posting a negative review is throwing a tantrum because things aren't the way you wanted them in the game.

How is that helpful to consumers? I'm with you if problems exist in the final release version. Posting a negative review would be helpful then. But this is Early Access and an alpha version of the game. The game isn't finished yet. Things are subject to change. Go ahead and leave a negative review though. You paid your money and bought that right. All you're doing by doing it is throwing your money away. If you have concerns about the game then send them to the developers. That doesn't mean they're obligated to respond to you or do things exactly as you want them done.

My point is you really aren't doing anybody any favors by posting a negative review. Not now with the game still under development. It comes off more as someone throwing a tantrum because the game wasn't made to their specifications. There's a long way to go before this game gets released and a lot can and most likely will change before then.

Wouldn’t this part also apply to positive reviews?

If one side can make assertions then so can the other side.

What happens to all of the EA reviews once the game launches? Are they still counted with reviews from people who played the full game?

Nope, they're all clearly marked as "EA reviews".



They're not selling the full game. They're selling the game as is. So that is what should be reviewed.

I think you cone off as somebody throwing a tantrum because somebody dared dislike something you like.

They are selling the full game. You didn't pay $60 just for Early Access. That price gets you Early Access plus the final release version. You say I'm throwing a tantrum? How so? I'm not the one pushing people to write reviews for an unfinished game. Early Access reviews, positive and negative, are rather pointless since the game is still a work in progress. But someone with a negative opinion of Early Access imploring people to write Steam reviews does more harm than good. Let's be honest here. The OP wasn't really looking for anybody to write a positive review. He wants people who agree with him to write reviews. In other words he wants to review bomb a game still under development just because the game doesn't meet his standards in some way.

There are no sides to this. How do you figure there is? Some people are going to like the way the game is being developed and some people aren't. The point here is that the game is still under development. The OP is urging people to write negative Steam reviews. He has a negative opinion of the game. The implication is that he wants others who share his opinion to write negative reviews in an attempt to review bomb this game even before it's final release. That's kind of pointless considering the game is still under development and subject to change many times before it goes gold. You don't raise concerns by posting negative reviews. You send those concerns to the development team. This comes off as an individual or group throwing a temper tantrum because the game isn't being made exactly to their standards.

Like I said there are no sides to this. Early Access reviews are pretty much pointless. That's why Steam marks them as EA reviews. The only reason I want to leave a positive review is as a counterpoint to people like the OP who is really trying to trash the game. Reminds me of a little kid throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way.

Don't worry there are many people declaring this game the greatest of all time, I'm sure the cut scenes will be fantastic.

The OP gripes more about their dissatisfaction with the direction than just about anyone I've seen and is claiming they want a refund. I guarantee you even if a refund was offered to them, they would not take it and would still be complaining about everything in the months to come.

Oh and not once did I say to only share negative reviews.

If I get one I'll post a screenshot for you.

I have no beef in this argument and I’m just referring to posting reviews. Of course there’s sides. One side likes where the game is going the other does not. If you can post good reviews for EA then others should be able to post negative ones.

I’m not sure why this idea is confusing.

I have played a lot of D&D in the past, but I am not going to fanboi hate a game because it is not some 1:1 replica of a tabletop game. It seems from a few of your posts, that is the major issue with you.

Find where I said it must be a 1 for 1 implementation. I'll wait.

Where do all the "Pure-5e-mob" misconceptions come from?
No one ever said Larian should make this game 100% like 5e.
I'm not a native English speaker and even I can distinguish the meaning of "please make it closer to 5e" from "make it a 1:1 5e replica".

Because without generalization and straw man arguments how does one demonize a view they disagree with?

No you did not come right out and say it. You implied that that's what you wanted to happen. Everybody on these forums knows that you have a negative opinion of the game. Then all of a sudden you start a thread urging people to leave a Steam review. A blind man can see what you're up to. You wanted those who agreed with you to post negative opinions on Steam. I'm a relative newcomer to these forums and I could see it right away by reading posts you made in other threads and seeing how you started this thread. Be honest. You weren't looking for people to post anything positive. As I said in other posts you basically tried to start a review bombing campaign because something about the game didn't go your way or hasn't met your standards. That's what refunds are for.

All the sudden? This thread is old.

Until today, I still had hope for this game.

If you enjoy it, by all means, leave a Steam review and tell folks all about it.

Nothing confusing about it. I personally don't think EA reviews are helpful either way. Do you know what? That's not what the OP wanted to happen. Nothing stops him from posting a positive or negative review on Steam. Nothing stops me. But I'm not the one on these forums full of negativity towards the game. I'm not the one who started a thread urging people to post reviews on Steam with the implication that those reviews be negative and agree with the OP's opinion of the game. Think about it. Why would the OP urge people to post positive reviews that he would most certainly disagree with? He wanted negative reviews posted simply because something isn't to his liking or didn't go his way. Acting like a spoiled brat when the easy solution is not to post negative reviews but to simply request a refund and be done with the game. My guess would be that even if the OP got his refund he would still be on these forums trashing the game.

You'll be wrong.

Once I get my refund, I'm out of here.

You started this thread on February 6. Today is only February 17. So it's only 11 days old. It's not that old.

.

OK. You can define old threads, just as you define intent.

Honestly I wish I didn't care, as the farce that was today's update ruined my whole day.

I'll just take up my fight with Steam, and you can go on enjoying cut scenes, and pushing people as a cat.

I will, Scribe, thank you. If you're looking for a good upcoming RPG, PF:WotR is good, and from what I know of you, is probably up your alley.

Yep, and I can still play BG1 and BG2. Classic games don't stop being great.

That's why they're classics!

Quit the bitch-fest and concentrate on discussing the game in a civil manner, please.

Why hello there, good sirs. I would like to present my point of view to this magnificent audience. In my humble opinion the game does not live up to the expectations. My primary concern is the fact that the developers do not seem to value the voice of community as much as they say they do. This lack of acknowledgement of the community feedback has left me bitter, frustrated and unable to withstand any more disappointment. So is my testimony, and I sincerely hope I did not offend any of you, wonderful people, with particular emphasis on the forum's moderators.

Well, my friend, I do sincerely appreciate the formality (And this isn't me being fresh or anything) but I should like to respectfully disagree. I feel that Larian has listened to the community on several issues (I.E. We need better UI, Short rests are useless, cantrips providing surfaces is broken, etc. This is just from what I know, and there may be more things lurking in the Patch 4 patch notes). I do believe that you are referring to a dislike for many of the changes Larian has made to the core decisions, and to a certain extent, there are certain things that they have simply made up their mind on. They have acknowledged that this feedback exists during Panel from Hell II in their discussion with Jeremy Crawford where they said that that certain things were, in their opinion, better for a CRPG as opposed to a TTRPG. It was, admittedly, a backhanded and catty way of saying it, but it was, essentially, their way of saying "no". If this game and discussion of it causes, as you say, bitterness and frustration, may I suggest taking a step back? I'm not trying to be rude, and I understand it might come across that way, and for that I apologize. For real, if you're feeling distressed, wallowing in anger and bitterness is probably not a good idea. As my quotation says, I hope that you have a good day and can find some peace, friend.

i mean crawford's response was about the rationale for the tabletop mechanics and really didnt address what the actual impact of wild shape changes (mainly, free action to drop animal form and bonus action to assume animal form) could be both at low levels or at later game - if we ignored bg3, even if these changes were implemented as standard in the tabletop id still want to hear what wotc thoughts are on the gameplay/mechanics impact, and crawfords answer still didnt address that (also not considering other questions from the stream, ie swen seemed to be able to take numerous [bear, bird, badger, cat] forms in one run whereas i thought wildshape was 2x/rest for the standard druid? - someone please correct me if im wrong here). imho, that whole segment with crawford really didnt reassure my concerns with the game's direction, and makes it seem like wotc isnt closely involved (or interested) in the development of the game.

to stay in the spirit of this thread, i do hope y'alls days are going well tho - lets hope patch 4 is able to drop next week

more detail below from another post regarding that interaction, but its like an ~1:33 into the panel for those whom want to hear for themselves

My 2 cents. I have enjoyed this game thus far. I have played multiple version of DnD including 5e. This game to my knowledge is the only 5e game out there. It has a lot to live up to.

I've also wanted to play a simple warlock that just blasts the hell out of everything at extreme ranges. This game like many before it, still has issues with ranged combat. That being the actual range of the weapon or spell. This has been persistent in all DnD games that I know of so it's not a big deal.

The current implementation of spells have been fine so far for the most part. I would appreciate friendship working so that I can get advantage when I talk to someone. I am not sure if advantage and disadvantage are being implemented in the game already. I not really checked the right side bar to read all that information. Not being a game programmer I would think it easy to have two roles and selecting the higher of the two. Also not sure how charm would work?

On a side note I wish level 5 was the cap instead of 4. There's a great meme about mages and this. I enjoy the items that are able to be found or made etc. They give nice flavor to the game. I hope more will be included.

I have high hopes for this game and hope that they will be able to implement all of the main classes and sub classes along with more races. I would have assumed that Wyll would be a Hexblade. Maybe they will change things in the final when they put the rest of the class features in the game. Hoping that they will include Sorcerer soon.

I am hoping that we will get a companion for every class as that makes sense. I figure the tiefling Ranger? you can either help or kill would be another option. As companions go there is clearly a good and evil alignment group that you are sort of forced to travel with. While I appreciate how your choices matter with companions, at times it's hard being good. I hope that there will be a better balance in the end when all companions are available. Though as it is, Gale can pitch in as a healer (though he shouldn't be able to), and the upcoming druid may fill this better. There also needs to be another tank, maybe a barbarian instead of Lae'Zel? Or again the Druid in bear form.

The story seems to be heavily influenced by tieflings? Not much here to say on that just an observation. I just wonder if there will be elf, dwarf, etc., speech options in the future for diversity?

Overall great early access game. Can't wait for the rest of the pieces to fall into place. Mahalo Nui Loa to Larian Studios for making this game.

If you find a way to get a refund through Steam despite clearing their 2-hour playtime limit, please message me to let me know.
I'd be eternally indebted to you.

3 Times, 3 Times Rejected, and the last one looked like it was on an even shorter (near automatic) rejection.

Its not happening I'm afraid. Honestly it should be criminal to charge $80 for a bloody Alpha Tech Demo, but here we are.

Eh, the way I see it, I already knew what I was getting into with this from the very moment that they showed off that first preview almost a whole year ago at this point, with the preview showing the game quite literally running on a modified D:OS2 engine. I was super optimistic in those days, knowing on a practical level that the preview was largely a tech demo and recycled assets are a very normal thing in game development, but it probably should have been a red flag thinking further on the actual combat mechanics I saw in that presentation. A game like this deserved a new engine that could implement everything that the system needed, for a game studio that is no longer some random indie developer now that they have multiple studios across the world. And this is especially for something that was supposed to have WotC's support and a full AAA budget to go along with it. Every other design decision I can ultimately tolerate in the end, but no ready actions and proper reactions is a complete travesty.

(On that note, this might sound overly harsh, but people should really stop trying to treat Larian as being above criticism because of the 'indie' label. You don't want to encourage complacency. There was one other company in recent memory with a similar kind of devoted fanbase, if not a lot more rabid in their belief that they could do no wrong... Until they did.)

That said, there's still a year or longer to go, and things do change with that kind of timeline. After all, I have been participating in Pathfinder WotR alpha and beta along with Solasta's EA simultaneously for the better part of the past 10 months, and a lot did happen in that timeline for those games too. If anything, the money I put into each project means I am obligated to stay on this train until the end and continue advocating for more suggestions and changes. And if nothing happens, I want to see and understand for myself if literally all of my predictions about this game's mechanics design having a spiraling detrimental effect on the mid/late game balance and encounter design turns out to be accurate in the end.

I mean no one forced you to pay for early access, Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

Is this your first alpha game? Because it is not up to the "community" to try and define what a developers vision of their game should be. We are accessing early content for a game we may, or may not be interested in. Also providing bug reports for crashes etc. Or letting them know about bugs. Besides that, we have the freedom to make the decision of whether we want to play the game, or not if it doesn't suit our play style. But we are not entitled to assume that we are some kind of shareholders that can dictate the direction a game goes. This isn't Burger King, you can always get it your way.

The entire point of Early Access is a higher level of communication during development between developers and players, Pandemonica. Larian is severely below expectations on that front.

I doubt that. EA was just a way to get some early revenue out of the hype without having to show anything.
If you want to see real EA you have to look at indi games or what Amplitude does.

+1

+1

And this is why disappointment is defined as unmet expectations.

I go into EA with minimal expectations - simply that the game with gradually morph and change during the course of EA, that the period will likely last 25 to 50% longer than estimated, and that I will receive news regarding such changes as they develop.

I have no expectations as to when, how often or in what manner such information will be provided.

Therefor, I do not find my expectations to be unmet, four months in on what is likely to be an 18 to 24 month EA period.

Early access, also known as early funding, alpha access, alpha founding, or paid alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game.

We are here for debugging, giving recommendations and feedback. But no where in any alpha game is there some agreement that we get to try and enforce changes that we personally want. In the end, that was the point of this thread. The OP wanted to try and extort a response to get the "game" he thought they should make by possibly starting a review bomb (sorry Scribe, that is how I see it). In any alpha I have ever been a part of, there may be 1 out of 100 recommendations from community forums that may get baked into the game. I think people need to realize that we are customers, not shareholders. We are players, not developers. Our only real power, is to not financially back a product we don't believe in. But that is the risk of being in a paid alpha, sometimes we don't like what we get and then people move on. At the end of the day, the only meter to measure the success of the game is its sales when it goes live, an player retention.

Just curious but how many hours over the 2 hour time limit are some of you? You can't expect to play for a lengthy period of time and then expect a refund. That's not the way Steam's refund policy works. It's not just with this game but all of their games. As for the charging of $80, I only paid $60 but nobody forced me to do it. Nobody forced you either. If you didn't know what EA was then that's on you. What do you think EA is anyway? It's certainly not the finished product. It's a game still under development. Either pre-Alpha, Alpha or Beta. Most people go into EA understanding that.

That's the reason I came down so hard on you for what amounts to a review bombing campaign. Nobody is saying you can't have a negative opinion of the game. But this is a game still under development and subject to change many times before final release. Review bombing a game that is in what amounts to an alpha or pre-alpha stage just because you don't like the way the developers implemented certain rules or changed things is pointless. The game has a long way to go before release. I can see people posting opinions, positive and negative, about what they see. It was fairly obvious that your intent was for people to post negative opinions only. For what purpose? You don't like the game. Fine. Post a negative review and move on. Urging other people to post negative reviews, which is what you were doing, comes off as a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.

So does claiming that it's suddenly criminal to be charged $80 for an Alpha Tech Demo. That's what EA is and it's your fault if you didn't understand that before spending your money. Be honest too. If the game were going to your liking it would be the best $80 spent even if it still was an Alpha Tech Demo. Good luck with your refund but I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be able to get one. Steam has a pretty good refund policy. The two hour limit is more than enough time to know if you're going to like the game. You can't play for more than two hours and then expect a refund. It doesn't work that way.

Well over. How else are you going to test and then provide feedback? 2 hours of work? lol

That's why you're not going to get a refund. They apply the same refund rules to EA so you only had 2 hours to test and provide feedback. Seems dumb but it is what it is. I just went through the same thing with a different EA game and I was only over the limit by an hour. I spent 2 hours trying to get that game to where I could actually read the in-game writing and labels. It didn't matter. Steam wouldn't give me a refund. So good luck. Especially if you have a significant amount of time played as you say you do.