Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Illusion of choice is everywhere.

Nope.
Bioware made BG1 and 2 while Black Isle licensed the engine, made Torment, the game bombed hard and the studio was scattered between Obsidian, Troika and few others.

Nevertheless, Black isle still participed in the developpement of all of these game. It's listed as developpers. So I Believe I can say these games were developped by Black Isle. I believe we are diverting from the subject, however.

@Clavis Look, It feels like you re rambling and trying to convince me that the game is full of choice when, obviously, you could have more in some situations. You can keep describing some part of the game and how you feel about them, it doesn't lead to any ways for players such as the OP to feel better about the in-game choices. I mean, lets be constructive and try to suggest for ways to solves that the cheapest way possible, as we are basically beta tester.

The thread title is the Illusion of choice, and many are saying that there are very little choices and that's wrong. I have stated facts from the game to show you that there is more then what they are seeing. Proving that their is choices, and more then meets the eye at first glance. I never stated that their could or couldn't be more in some situations, just that there are more then what people are seeing. Are the choices going to be what everyone wants, no, especially when they're not seeing all of it. Wether it be through rushing, not paying as much attention or just going by one playthrough. Either of these things can lead to them believing the choices are limited, when they are not. or not as limiting as what is seen at first glance.

You want a summary of all my supposed ramblings. Open your eyes, play through even the first part of the game multipule times, in different ways, with different classes, and races. Explore around, then come and make an informed decision. Because evidently people providing proof, as to what they have noticed is simply rambling, and not going to change views. If proof doesn't, then what does?

also with the provided examples you can go through and keep an eye out, maybe even see something I miss,or others miss.

People in this thread are talking about their experiences and their feelings in reaction to those experiences. It is neither kind nor helpful to tell people that their feelings are wrong. If people feel like their choices don't matter, that is something that Larian needs to know, regardless of what the underlying mechanisms really are.

A person who plays the game and has a bad time of it isn't going to play through it multiple times to find out that it could have gone another way - they're just going to walk away with a memory of a bad experience. Objective truth, to the extent that there is such a thing, is irrelevant. Please tone down the condescension in the future.

I think I've vented my vitriol fairly often on just how bad the Kagha dialogue is when you're trying to save the kid.

+1

I think some don't quite understand that consequences might not be immediate and dramatic. And also that not every time you open your mouth earth should part and lava should burst forth immediately or one rest away from that moment.

Some choices may indeed not matter much at all and frankly it makes sense, after all you're not some divine entity that decides every mortal's fate by a few different words. I mean like making Crusher kiss your feet by natural persuasion, unless you do it with illithid powers there is no real consequence at all to that whether you make him smooch your boots or not.

Many choices, however may have far reaching consequences that are not apparent, whether unlocking a questline or alternative solution that you need to find to exploit or simply being a lead on what's coming in Act 2/3. It can be both directly or indirectly regarding characters you talk to or compounding baggage with your companions and squiddie.

All in all - there are also limits too, this is going to be a very big game with a huge amount of conversations, ways to approach problems, characters you may or may not encounter or who may or may not survive. I'm sure they will do heroic efforts to offer as much meaningful results to your actions, but at some point have to accept that it's not going to be absolute 100% everything affecting everything in a meaningfully considerable way.

Yes nostalgia blinds us to a lot of mistakes. But I don't think there is anything wrong with some recycling. We have to remember that it takes resources and time to make these games so having 10 completely different of ways to interact with the rat in the cave might not be the best use of those, hence recycling.

If you think about the main Goblin/Tiefling/Druid questiine there are 4 completetly different outcomes in this narrative with several minor flavours in between. That's far from being "Illusion of choice".

Does siding with the goblins really make sense? They turn hostile anyway. The game hints at the option of the player joining forces with the absolute and then Minthara tells us that it wants us dead anyway. I think that counts as illusion of choice. It remains to be seen how these choices affect chapter 2.

Yo uare preaching to the choir here.
I was specifically pointing that IF ANYTHING this game seems to be already an improvement in this area compared to the old ones.

1) Sometimes while the choice have no outcome on the situation, it does affect your influence with companions.
2) Even if the outcome is the same giving you the "illusion of choice", the diferent options give you a chance to ROLE PLAY your character.
3) Having played over 100 hrs with all classes, there are LOTS of impactfull decisions. More than many realize.

Illusion of Class too. My party of Barrelhobos.

Barrelball > Fireball anyway.

+1 As many have pointed out already, this game was released as EA to give both the developers and players a good shot at getting the best possible end product, and thus all feedback can be useful or at least appreciated. +1 It has also been kindly pointed out that a demeaning attitude doesn't bring much to the conversation. We all look at this product with different eyes and we all have different experiences that influence the way we look at it.

The overarching plot of the game is of course the most important, and yes, in some situations choices doesn't really matter much. Also, as some people have pointed out, +1 the fact that your choices affect your companions in most situations is a good point in itself. Like my devil example (2nd post), it's probably more about the dialogue you have with your companions after the encounter, than anything else. With that said, we also have a lot of people talking about how the choices may matter further down the line, which can be great, but the player should get some kind of hint if they do. If I insult Raphael and he keeps the same dialogue, but changes to an irritated expression, then I as a player will know that what I said had an impact on him. That impact could be radical or it could be something really small, like a missing or added dialogue option or a possibility for an extra investigation check at a later point in the game. So far though, I've been left with a feeling that quite a few seemingly important conversations doesn't matter much at all. And that bothers me.

As a reference point for me I like to use Greedfall as an example of a game that poses as "choices matter" but in fact doesn't deliver at all. I'm not saying BG3 is the same or will end up the same, but getting the same feeling about the game's choices is a good reason for the raise my voice in the form of feedback. This is not about Greedfall per se, but I will use a few of countless examples from that game to express how I look at an illusion of a choice, that can ruin the whole experience. Major spoilers incoming.



Edit: The Rpahael example stands in very strong contrast to say the Gith'yanki patrol. In the case of Gith'yanki you can take charge of the conversation and reach a peaceful solution (while being a badass). It's three hard rolls to do it, but it leads to a different situation and a different solution to the encounter. As previously stated, I get that we can't have that everywhere, and that the main story encounters are more important in that sense, but I'm missing the details and the nuance in the side-quest encounters quite often. The devil's in the details, and the details will end up making a game like this from an RPG-perspective (in my point of view).

Yeah, I agree. I though about it and, I feel like there is a very simple fix the community can do for theses.

Basically, we can just look at the example provided (so far Ethel and Raphael), and try to suggest some additional dialogues or event that may make its feels more complete. No need to argues about the games as a whole, I personnally like it and as been said, have seen quite à few great quest in it.


So Yeah about Ethel :

IMHO , the perception check is enough, its gives you certainty that Ethel is lying and allow you to avoid killing the two villagers. You might earn a bit of exp for it, though. In Baldurs gate, whenever you unlocked a door, disarmed a trap , you earned a bit of exp. Succeeded dices rolls could gives you exp and that would feel like a reward.
Yet, in this quest, whatever you do the two brother dies . Or at least, I didn't find a way to allow them to survive. And even if you tell their sister that Ethel killed them, the outcome of the discussion is still ''Ethel cage Mayrina and flee''.
So instead, maybe allow for a dialogue with a charisma check or intimidation check to tell the two brother to stay away from Ethel. If they survive, they give you a bit of exp, a small loot item. And maybe they welcome Mayrina when she come back, or throw stones at her if she comes back with the undead, saying she is a monster now. I dunno, just an example. Feel free to give mores.



About Raphael :

Its could probably be solved in a few easy ways as well.

If you draw your weapon and attack Raphael : you could either see a small cutscene where he teleport away from your strike and mock you, then he talks about his offer and disappears. That way the player understand that Raphael is out of his reach for now. Probably the simplest way
Another way is to just make the player fight a very strong Raphael that quickly kill your whole party. THis way, you can attack him, you have the choice but its game ovr. I love this option, but I wonder, if he could do that he 'd probably do it, as it would be the easiest way to get the tadpole. Unless he really wants something else, like a service. so the top option is prolly better imo.
You could also fight a weak/ mediumly strong Raphael. Once you wound him enough, he backs off , threathen and snarl, then say he ll come back. This way the players understand that the cambio is not strong enough to win against him, but too interested in the tadpole to give up

Regarding the ''just do it option''.

This is trickier, but maybe Raphael could say that he need tools to extract your tadpole, or maybe he need to wait for some reason but that he may ask you for a devil pact right now. This pact will give you boons, and promise the tadpole and a service to Raphael, but will give a horryfing disadvantage later in the game if broken, and require a subquest to remove the curse. If you accept the service it might be a very evil thing. I mean, just like Ethel, if you ask her to remove your tadpole something happen, you lose one eyes ! So asking Raphael to do it, even if he can't do right now for some reason, should provoke a reaction. Feel free to suggest more ideas !

In hopes of not seeming condesending or rambly .


This is a Role playing game. Where you play a role, a person other then you the gamer. How is your character, the one your playing, and trying to be per the very first word know you are incapable of beating Raphael because he is several levels above you (a game mechanic that your character doesn't know) your character could draw the conclussion do to what Raphael has done, and is that attacking him isn't wise, and quite possibly lethal. or that he may need tools, or whatever. What your character knows is that he is offering to cure you, he is a cambion so he probably wants something in return. Raph is being vague for a reason, he wants you to accept right away. He's dangling this out to lure you in, there is no reason he'd start in on what he'll need ect. he's offering you what you want.

more likely to accept Raph's offer if he says. "I can cure you." or is it more likely you'll accept if he says 'Well I can possibly cure you, but I'm going to need a few things, and you'll have to sell me your soul in a legally binding contract." which would you chose the first offer or the second?

think alot of you all are missing the point of RPG's, all the we need more, we need clarity, we need this. That's you the gamer crying that because it's basic human nature to want these things. Yet in real life we dont' have all these answers, nothing is black and white, and we have to look for them. It should be the same in RPG, they already hand out alot of stuff, but they are wanting you all to playthrough several things as your Character, let you draw conclusions that your character would, find out the consequences of your characters actions as you play. It's why it's called an RPG, and per an RPG standpoint it's very good. Far better then others out there, which aren't really RPG no matter the label, they're more hack and slash.

More about Ethiel again we as our character doesn't know she's a hag, even if we beat the insight check we don't know she's a hag, or whats going to happen to the brothers. We as are characters may never find out. What we do know is two men are threatening a seeming innocent old lady (unless we pass our insight check) we don't know. Later on we may or may not find out what happens, which leads to more revelations. Which may very well make you regret your choice, yet just like in real life (which RPG's are spose to be a reflection of) you don't have all the answers, you won't know right away about the consequences if at all. Until you explore them to there end, are find the brothers dead in this case.

About Ethel : We still know Mayrina has disappeared and everyone call Ethel the ''hag'' (dunno the english name, in french its ''guenaude'' and everyone seems to know she is weird and dangerous. Developpers have even included a dialogue option where you try to tell the brother not to meddle in. So contrary to what you said, the player has enough clue to guess that its too dangerous for outsiders, and there is an option for it, but its not doing anything right know. I'm merely suggesting a tweak so that it does. You're free to suggest better options.

About Raphael : I'm merely trying to suggest option so that Raphael react differently if you either attack him or accept his offer.

I don't need you to narrate the game story by the way. I have Baldurs gate 3 installed, and it does that better than you. But thanks anyways !

+1 and appreciate the effort.

I'm not really worried that Larian is running out of ideas, but mainly want o point it out because I find it really important. They may still be working on those parts, but if not, good suggestions!

I feel like the game is going for as much of a tailor made experience as possible and also aim to go for replayability. We don't know yet if the three paths will be mutually exclusive or not yet (Underdark/Mountain pass/road), but if they are it makes me think about Witcher 2's story - really something special in the way of presenting the narrative and encouraging at least another playthrough.



You do sound condescending and I think you missed the point entirely. The second part of the quote ^ is stating pretty much exactly what at least I am looking for. If we get the answer straight off the bat then it's no fun, obviously, but it's also no fun to be playing in the dark. As stated (Raphael scenario) in my previous post I think that it could be amazing, but it would need some subtle hints as to how he react to us. Alternatively, a stronger approach of "I don't care what you say, I'm in control". What Hachina wrote about Raphael teleporting away and mocking you, possibly ending the dialogue early, would be one perfect example of how the second alternative could be done. It's showing that you are beneath him and that he controls his part of the narrative. The time has not come, but it will, and he will be your one option when it does.

The most contrived and unnatural conversation illusion of choice I found so far is with Raphael. I was really disappointed that even when you agree to allow him to help, he just doesn't give anything and serves the same line at the end of the dialogue. What's the point in making all this grand appearance and display of power if in the end, whatever you say, he just leaves you with nothing ?

My first thought was that this can be said about every computer RPG ever and is inevitable, unless there is an unlimited budget and 20 years of development. It's simply not possible to branch the main story too much and too often.

Second thought is that for me there are actually a lot of consequences to your choices, compared to many other big RPGs. Like which factions to side with, to help someone or betray them. Different ways of solving quests, going against party members or not etc. I mean in some cases the consequences are quite strong, especially when accepting deals related to people helping you with the tadpole.

For me personally in the end I also like the choices that do not end up in immediate consequences. It allows me to roleplay and define my character. In the Raphael example I agree that it is a bit too jarring the way it is written, but I do think my dialogue choices there say a lot about my character and how I chose to play him.