Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Sense of Progression

Hi all: before I dive in I want to say that although the tone of this post may feel very critical at times, I did mostly enjoy my first time through BGIII. My opinions are relatively mixed on the EA product and neither all one way nor another. Obviously everything I say in this post is infused with my own values as a fan of the genre and are in no way meant to be absolute statements. I know opinions here can tend toward that so I figured this is a good disclaimer with which to start off. I'll also try to avoid as many spoilers as possible, though I assume most of us have played through a lot of the content already.

That being said, probably my biggest concern with EA so far is what I would term a "weak" sense of progression, or put another way: the relatively meandering nature of the first Act. This was one of my primary concerns given how closely BGIII hews to the DOS formula and the projected low level cap (10) for the full game. To expand on this: due to the relatively long amount of time you can spend in the first Act (upwards of 30 hours if you're really exploring every nook and cranny), there's a greater need to make the player feel like they are being propelled forward, be it through progression of items/gear, character (level/skill), or story. My current problem with the EA is that it simply... doesn't.

In terms of item/gear progression, the feeling of uncovering truly unique and powerful items isn't really there. That's understandable, given that Act 1 seems to mostly encompass levels 1-4, and most level 4 characters aren't decked out in rare and epic loot. But as Act 1 can take almost as long as a single playthrough of an older CRPG (say, Icewind Dale), it's hard to maintain interest in discovering loot that is mostly just +1 or at best carries a modest damage/attribute bonus. This is especially problematic when most of the items themselves are not very visually interesting or varied. For me, it's a problem if a modern "AAA" RPG allows for gear variety/customization on par with games released 10-20 years ago.There are exceptions to this, for sure, and I'm of the mind that this can (and will) change as EA progresses because loot tables and designs are not 100% finalized. But it is worrisome to play nearly 30 hours in a RPG where I'm spending most of my time looking at my own party and feel like, visually, they are stagnant. Especially so as it harkens back to a problem I had playing DOS2, where it felt that the visual style of gear often felt very same-y and generic as you progressed.

So from there you have either character building or story to really hook the player. The problem here being that as far as fantasy stories go, the first Act of BGIII is pretty paint-by-numbers. "Catastrophe forces an unwilling band of adventurers to work together" is bog standard for the genre. Some games can make up for this with an interesting twist, really deep companion stories, or side quests, but once again BGIII doesn't really make any real waves. Here, the hag side quest stood out as one of the few relative bright spots. If anything, my biggest surprise stemmed from just how many people with "deadly secrets/troubling pasts" you can apparently jam into one party. Which highlights a common problem with a lot of fantasy writing: if the stakes are always high, they never actually are. If every obstacle faced is epic/life-changing in nature, none is. The drama just isn't very human or nuanced. Surprisingly (considering how I've seen many a negative reaction to her), Lae'zel mostly seems unburdened by this trope which is refreshing to say the least. Not to say that the story is bad, it's definitely solid. It's also very linear. Which would not be a problem if it felt like the game really hit it out of the park anywhere else. It's also hurt by the fact that, despite the "urgency" of the tadpole dilemma, the pacing of the main story itself can often feel erratic. This is especially noticeable if you are looking to comb over the content as much as you can before you move on to the next Act. Some genres do linear, "standard" stories well (FPSes), but they also have the benefit of having plot beats come at a relatively quick and regular pace. At some times it feels like events in BGIII are moving quickly (prologue), at others it feels like they've slowed to molasses (Druid's Grove and general exploration). Maintaining interest in the story under these conditions becomes hard if you don't have other carrots to entice the player down the narrative path. Again, this is a problem I experienced in DOS2 at times.

You'll notice I didn't mention companion romances here, and that's more personal preference: I don't think romance is something games do particularly well and, at this point in my life, I'd rather watch a show/movie for romance than play a game for it. Of course, that's an obvious bias that could pretty significantly alter how you view the strength of the story, particularly in terms of the companions.

Of course, gear and story aren't the only ways to make players feel like they're moving at pace along the game's narrative. There are examples from within the genre (or its close relatives) where gear progression can be absolutely godawful but it still works - see Mass Effect. Others, a mostly generic fantasy plot that otherwise works because of the game's other elements (Pathfinder: Kingmaker). This brings me to level or character progression. Unfortunately, 4 levels isn't a lot to really make a character your own or your party feel like its really "leveling up" (excuse the pun) given the nature of DnD. You're typically not making huge character-building decisions in the first few levels. And that's totally fine - I fell in love with this genre through classics like Icewind Dale, Arcanum, BG2, and so on so I know how that goes. But 4 levels in 20-30 hours is just too thin. If we extrapolate and say a full (not rushed) playthrough of BGIII takes upwards of 100 hours, that's not very much progression in what is a huge time commitment. Ultimately, this makes the game feel "grind-y" in a way that is reminiscent of old MMOs. Given the slow and sometimes erratic progression of the rest of the game, that's a significant problem.

All of that critique to ultimately say: Progression, in general, feels off in BGIII. It's a solid game and I'm still excited to see what 1.0 looks like, but I have to wonder if this is a case of trying to do "too much" and as a result overall depth has suffered. Feel free to tell me how I got this wrong, though. I'm interested in seeing others' thoughts.

These are some good analyses and I'd agree with most of it. I'd say it's fine to be critical, that's what feedback on EA is for. To get back to your points:

First Act/story - There are some flaws with the narrative; the main one being the urgency which everyone screams at you that you need to find a cure for the tadpole but then you can wander around at leisure doing side quests. Without a day/night cycle and calendar we have no true sense of the passing of time; this for me is one of the biggest immersive problems with the game. Walking around in permanent daylight feels wrong and is severely limiting from both an immersion and RP perspective.

With regard to the companions I found their backstories lacked credibility for a Level 1 character. Apart from perhaps Lae'zel, the rest were so exceptional that it feels like a gathering of Marvel super heroes, rather than a group of adventurers who have the opportunity to start relatively humble and grow together. The story also divulges in concept from previous games where the main PC was the character with the mysterious background which was slowly revealed; with every companion sharing the tadpole all of a sudden the main PC on longer feels quite so special, if that makes sense.

I would totally agree that there is little nuance in the game, everything is cranked up to the max from the brash planes traversing prologue to experiencing The Underdark, and all the dangerous monsters that Larian could possibly throw at us, all in Act 1! Long gone are the days of earning your crust fighting low level critters, instead we have HP bloated goblins laden with explosive arrows and bombs. This does curtail the sense of progression/achievement I feel. Is it a case of too much too soon? Trying too hard to be 'fun'?


Items/gear - I did find a large amount of loot in my various playthroughs and to be honest wasn't expecting to find a plethora of magic items, given that we play Levels 1-4.
I did however find there was a bit of a lack of variety and more of certain weapons than others, which meant more often than not you ended up with surplus items that you had no real need for. It doesn't help that the inventories are huge and a frankly a total mess from a UI perspective. Another thread touched on this directly, calling for more realistic inventory similar to BG1 & 2; limited slots and a properly implemented weight limit.

I would totally concur on the lack of variety with garments/armour and everyone looking the same. Some of them are simply OTT and hideous (here's looking at you Ring Mail with huge 1970s collars). I'd love to see options for less gaudy armour, for example. Not everyone wants to look like a peacock.

Romances Of little interest to me but each to their own. I was annoyed at how quickly the companions wanted to jump my bones after minimal conversation though. It just didn't feel real.

I'm also keen to see what the new patch brings and whether they have considered some of the feedback given.

Thanks for the comments! I definitely understand where you're coming from.

The lack of a sense of passing time is definitely a big one for me and contributes to the feeling of, once the player is past the prologue, the whole narrative slowing to a relative standstill. Which, as you point out, lies in stark contrast to the stated urgency of our tadpole problem at the beginning of the Act. It can be pretty jarring. Of course, this is a common drawback of having a game packed with side content, but there are ways to structure the narrative/progression to still give the player a feeling of forward momentum.


This point was definitely one of my main concerns when I first installed and played EA back in late October/early November. Nearly everything, from character backstories to the stakes of the side quests is cranked up to 11. One of the beauties, as you note, is the feeling of growth. That doesn't mean every game should start with us running around whacking rats until we can move onto kobolds and kobolds until orcs and on and on, but if the relative stakes start high and don't relent, you lose out on both vertical growth and the kind of idiosyncrasies that complement and draw out satisfaction from completing further content. The most relevant analogy I can think of here is to cooking: If you make a dish homogenous in texture, taste, color, etc., while it still might taste good it is not going to excite someone the same way a heterogenous dish will. The contrast between different flavors and textures is what makes you able to truly appreciate their differences and makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Starting out fighting cambions, mindflayers, owlbears, and potentially even a dragon doesn't leave a whole lot of room for an upward trajectory, and is likely to make the brief respites seem less like a welcomed breather and more of a nadir. I would agree that a lot of this could stem from a desire to make the game feel "epic" from minute 1, which has the unwelcome effect of making everything feel one-note.


Agreed on gear, and that's why I tried to hedge a bit, too: I know a lvl 4 Ranger is not going to be rocking legendary equipment. But given the ubiquity of junk items (and food) and the lack of real visual customization in gear, it can have the effect of making the "good stuff" feel really sparse even if it's not. Even more purely cosmetic options would be wonderful for giving our party the feeling of its own personality and style, beyond epic loot.

The point about weight and slot limits is well-taken, too. I think the current situation is actually very solidly captured by the "messiness" and "surplus" feeling of the inventory. It seems that Larian has gone into development with the philosophy that "more = better" (having just read Drath's very good thread on how Larian is using user data, this seems particularly poignant... they seem to interpret "fun" as more and bigger explosions and effects) and, as is often the case, more is simply more and can actually add up to something worse over all. This applies equally to the aforementioned issue with encounters and narrative beats. Sometimes subtlety is king.

Sadly I think the live stream today was probably the strongest indication of where the game is heading and most likely there won't be much of a deviance from its current state. I just feel a bit sad about it to be honest though perhaps I shouldn't have had such high expectations to begin with.

Personally, I don't mind if the "look" of armor is not up to spec with the main development, the majority of cool looking stuff nowadays is obtained through Nexus mods for me, and they seem to put up way better looking armor than pretty much ALL developers. I am more focused on the stats. I can say that since everything is set off a d20, +1 means a lot more than other games in the genre. So to get a +5 stat, I am thinking that is waaay later in the game.

Although a day/night cycle would be cool. It is more of a cherry on top thing for me. You can also use you days camped as a tracker, which would be cool if they had somewhere you could actually see you in game play time in regards to days etc.

I will have to disagree with the "super hero" comment in regards to the companions. Now with Rogues, and Warriors yeah they develop pretty fast. But in regards to the clerics, mages, rangers they seem to miss ALOT, so I don't really see them as being super as you put it, but I guess that is a personal opinion.

I kind of agree/disagree with the standard character development, or the quests. I mean that is standard in all RPGs for a reason. If they stray to much from that, a lot of players will not be in their comfort zone, and the game could be affected negatively. Now what would be cool, and I guess they did something similar in DOS 2 from what I hear (I never did multiplayer in that game), you can create your own missions and adventures. There is a big difference between making original type quests for friends in a tabletop game as a GM, and making that work as a financially successful computer RPG. It is kind of like "sand box games". In theory people always go on how they are awesome, but in practice you can count the number of successful ones on one hand, and have a couple fingers left over.