Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback My Steam Not Recommended Review

I feel its an ok game. Allowing us to import/export our characters from one game to another is going to be the deal breaker to a lot of people. Who wants to create a new character or play as an NPC every single time they want to play with a friend? I agree with this review, there is a lot of work to still be done and I hope they really listen to the fan base.

A lot of the complaints are things that go back to DOS even, so I hope several are addressed it just means this game and whatever is next will benefit from it. They never really nailed Inventory Management well. Now one thing to consider is they need to make it Gamepad accessible as well, that said it doesn't mean one cannot invest in two systems if that is needed to make each feel right.

I certainly do. If I were looking at buying this on Steam, for EA, and read this review after reading what Larian provided on the Steam storefront for the game, my reaction wouldn't be "Well, that's certainly insightful, I'm glad I read it.", it would be "did the poster read the message posted by Larian before they made their purchase?". It's not telling me anything that I couldn't have gleaned from reading the official statement, so it would just be a few minutes of my life I couldn't get back while I read it. I say this even though, as I posted earlier, despite their chosen name, which would, btw, also play a big part in how seriously I took their comments, I wouldn't recommend this game to everyone I know, although I do have friends that I would recommend it to, because they worked on NWN modules, and understand what getting a game in Early Access really means.

D&D player hand book page 194 for rolling 20 or 1 in combat...
D&D player hand book page 197 for rolling a 20 or 1 for death saves
While most checks do not have a specific rules for 1's and 20's many items in D&D state a roll of 20 will do etc... And most campaign guides also state the DC rules and exceptions if a 1 or 20 is rolled. Especially at earlier levels. And in my opinion a simpler and better way of doing this is just to have 1 always fail, and 20 always succeed. Instead of making or not making a new rule for each interaction. As it is just too much work. The official rule is that the DM decides the difficulty of any check. So it is not a house rule to make 1s fail and 20s succeed. It just isn't written in stone. A big difference. And most players who read the rules without a degree in D&D will assume 1s are always bad and 20s are always good. Unless explained and shown in greater detail. Even players in the show critical roll don't seem to understand that. When matt (the DM) doesn't fail them for a 1 on a check, they seem completely confused. So why not just make it so? It isn't really a house rule. It is more or less a miss understand of sometimes this scenario 1s and 20s have these rules, but not always.


Ok. And you expect every player to be an alchemist with loads of bottles from level 1? Also they way out perform all melee in the game. And I don't see that changing at any level.

Look I didn't like NWN. I liked BG 1 & 2. There is a reason NWN didn't do as good as BG. And isn't considered as good as a game when looking back. Well by most people anyways. Despite both having high ratings. And I could care less how they did it in that game. This is suppose to be an extension of the other BG games by name.



This statement is all opinion. And your opinion. I disagree with it pretty much. I didn't find my inventory annoying in BG 1 or 2. Hell even dropping stuff on the ground was easier in those games. And was absolutely great for the time/age it was created in. BG3 inventory seems a few steps back compared to the original. And technologies and examples of other systems are out there.

I am not going to bother comparing the game to games out side the Baldur's gate name. Might as well compare it to anything at point.

And at least the characters in BG 1 & 2 didn't try to kill me on site. Oh you just held a knife to my neck. Yay why don't you come stay at my camp? That won't end poorly. Like really? The story is crap. Like really crap. That is my opinion. But to each their own. At least your comment suggested you actually read and considered my post for what it is. Most people here aren't even worth responding too. So you do deserve some praise for at least standing by your objections. And I would like to say your are more than welcome to your opinion. And if more people are like you. Than by all means let the developer see it. Isn't that the whole point of EA. To get early feedback. To most of the rest of you F-off. Your not worth my time or effort.

Good post OP. Unfortunately, you came to the wrong forum. This is a place where all of the fanboys and smooth-brained pepegas hang out to ensure that only positive comments are made about the game. It's quite nauseating. God forbid anyone have actual criticisms to help improve BG3.

It's astonishing how many ignorant posters keep saying "It's early access." Oh our apologies, I guess this "early access" label means that we instantly excuse everything that's wrong with the game.
My question for these people is...are you really that incompetent? You keep defending the game by throwing "early access" out there. Do you pepegas not understand that the point of early access is to accumulate as much feedback as possible and potentially improve the game? So it's OK that there's a myriad of problems with the game because it's "early access," but it's not OK to critique any of them? The real shame is that most of the valid criticism will go ignored because they become drowned in a sea of nonsense.




Here is my objective feedback after 30 hours of gameplay:

1) Perks / abilities / passives / etc DO NOT appear in the character sheet. For example, at level 2 for warlock I chose "Agonizing Blast" and "Devil's Sight" as additional passives. However, NOWHERE in the character sheet (or entire game) does it display that I now have these for my warlock. I would only know I have them because I remember picking them. It is a serious oversight to not have ALL of the character progressions and advancements display in the character sheet.

2) Unclear status effects on spells, lack of a compendium. Many spells that cause status effects are unclear in what they actually do. For example, "Blind." The tooltip on this spell states it causes "Blindness" that can be shaken off with a saving throw, but it does not state what the actual effects of Blindness are. Does Blindness mean that attacks can't be made? Or does it mean they just have less of a chance to hit? The tooltip on the spell is incomplete in this sense, and the lack of a compendium means that I cannot look it up anywhere in the game. Another example is "Silence," which creates a sphere in which all creatures are "Silenced." What does Silenced mean? Does it mean they are literally silent, or does it mean they cannot cast abilities? Again, the spell tooltip is unclear. This is true for MANY spells. Either expand the tooltips, or create a compendium where the player can read about status effects and what they do.

3) Hidden details on spells / abilities that are not listed in the tooltip. One example here being "Hex." If the concentration of Hex is ever broken, Hex can be recast on another target without the use of a spell slot. This is not mentioned on the tooltip. Another example is "Shatter," which is an AoE spell, but nowhere on the tooltip is it actually listed as AoE. It makes me wonder how many other spells have hidden effects that I am unaware of.

4) Inconsistent rules. The example here being if I cast "Darkness," why is it that my warlock with Devil's Sight cannot see or attack in the zone of Darkness? If the rules are supposed to follow D&D, then my warlock SHOULD BE ABLE to see and attack in the Darkness spell effect. In this game, that is not the case, and it is unclear why. Furthermore, how does this make "Darkness" any different from "Fog?" Perhaps this is a simple oversight in game design and programming.

5) Lack of a rulebook. If the entire game is based on the rules of D&D and even plays exactly like D&D with dice rolls, why not include an in-game rulebook? It's easy enough to google all sorts of rules, but at least including the basics would make sense. This of course would simply be a quality of life change, and an optional compendium that exists for players that want it.

I agree, the game is in early access. That said, Larian charged $60 bucks for this, and in that regard I wouldn't recommend it to anyone in its current state having played it myself, to anyone at that price. Its still too little for that price, both in content and quality at this point. I hope it improves, but having played through it a couple of times now, I am pretty done with it until there is more to it than there is now, and improvements are made.

Be nice. We do actually read and scoop up good criticism. Behaving poorly may leave a bad first-impression though and make it less likely for someone to want to read what you've actually got to say. Fortunately, I do.
But do behave. No need to lash on others or get rude.

Legitimate question, why throw around the insults? Do you honestly think that people will suddenly see your point of vieuw if you just insult them or something?? Oh man I dident see your point before but now you call me a smooth brain I totally see your point!

People excuse things for EA because when you start a game thats in EA you KNOW that certain parts are buggy, unfinished, not yet included, etc. We arent excusing the bugs themselves, we often acknowledge them. But noting a bug/missing feature and throwing a tantrum over it isent helping either. So many people sound fucking upset that they find bugs or whatnot and the game isent outright PERFECT and thats why people say 'its EA, calm down'. People sound entitled or even offended that the game isent finished. Its EA. We knew that upfront. Mention the bugs, missing feature, oversights or whatever and move on with your life. Will be better for your blood pressure and might give Larian a chance to implement it.

Your feedback points for example are valid. #1 is correct, its currently very unclear or impossible to find what perks and features you have. #2 as well. I KNOW what blindness does in pnp for example but unless you or a creature is effected by it you cant look at the status effect in the game. Thats a bad thing and mentioning that allows them to adress it. Same applies to #3. Should be listed in the spell, they should adress that. #4 shouldnt be a thing either but is probably an oversight. Devil's sight should totally see through that. #5 I agree with as well. Even if you play dnd pnp every day the game should be as clear to you as to someone who has never played tabletop. Ingame encyclopedia or 'rulebook' if they want to call it that should help with that.

I agree.

However, it's only EA...