Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13
Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
In case you've missed it:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/h...finitive-dungeons-and-dragons-video-game

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

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


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

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

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

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

UPD: a fresh article from IGN (Matt Purslow) is here, brought by @Rhobar121
https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-changes-player-data-feedback-larian

Last edited by Ellenhard; 10/11/20 07:08 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Wyll is the only one I would've pegged as good - barely.

It's nice to know that more personable companions will be coming in time, but I wonder if we'll have to wait for the full release.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
idk, the 'evilness' or the likeability of the characters currently available was never really a huge issue for me during my playthrus altho i do know that the 'evil' storyline has been a topic of discussion on these forums - which i think stems partially from mixed messaging from larian/wotc in that there was a directive to move away from alignment but there are still alignment mechanics implemented as part of gameplay and 'evil' companion npcs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by nation; 08/11/20 07:41 PM. Reason: sp
Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020

Originally Posted by nation


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

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

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


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

Joined: Oct 2020
H
member
Offline
member
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ellenhard

Originally Posted by nation


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

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

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


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


You will know ...

In one year :p


If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Jul 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Ellenhard


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

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

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


That's what I'm impatient to learn as well, at this point.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. You too can join the good fight HERE
Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
From the article:
We asked Vincke how the team is managing die-hard far expectations, as well as enticing a new audience to Baldur’s Gate: "Well we’re basically trying to make the game that we’d like to play," he says. "Given that all of us are very big Baldur’s Gate fans, we think we can make a game that works for all the fans out there."

Well, I'm a die-hard, passionate fan of the original Baldur's Gate games. So I am one of the "all the fans out there." And yet Larian doesn't seem to be making a game here that works for me. Mr. Vincke, respectfully, what's up with that, sir?

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Kinda sad about the implication that this is as evil as it gets. If delighting in my being a mild jerk is what's considered to be evil, those good characters are going to be an unbearable smattering of cotton candy and butterflies.


I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
"If we can stick to the rules then we stick to the rules, but if we need to modify them to make them more fun, or if they don’t work in a video game setting, then we’ll adapt them. The video game always wins in the end."

I don't have a problem with this. Some people do, but I don't think they're being very reasonable. Most of the people who buy this game won't even know the 5e rules. And most of the DMs and D&D players I've known understand and accept the existence of house rules in a given campaign. If some things are a little different than in the books, it's not gonna ruin the game.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Hmm. That's disappointing. Sound's like they are brushing character feedback under the rug and are just going to stick with whatever. Why put characters out to test if they are going to brush it off? I guess they mostly wanted to test functionality of systems. Sound's like feedback does not matter as much as I'd have hoped. I'll see in the next couple of updates.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
It would be nice to get a survey. But I think @Sorcerv1tor's reddit and larian forum surveys had something like 110 each?

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

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

Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Kinda sad about the implication that this is as evil as it gets. If delighting in my being a mild jerk is what's considered to be evil, those good characters are going to be an unbearable smattering of cotton candy and butterflies.


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

We'll get a relatively simple good-meaning character in ranger Minsc, but I can't see how it will correspond with the flexibility of party building where you have a backup idealistic/altruistic character for every major role in case you need some not self-centered folks in your party. If there are only 3 companions remaining, 1 of them being a ranger, for example, we are left either without cleric, wizard, or rogue role (or more than one). And stuck with whoever irks us. With the notions of Karlach going paladin, it looks even worse in that division (2 melee/probably Strength-based characters (if they still go with a canon Minsc route and current Karlach's examination showing Str-based build) could easily work together n the battlefield, yet break the party balance. Looks like an oversight to me, not a design choice (which would be trolling a certain type of players).

Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.


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

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

So Larian is captaining this ship of BG3, and without the botswain calls, the crowd (70k players were playing, a few hundred overall actively posting) will get rowdy or go awol at the next port. Are we just passengers or part of the effort? Can't have both ways. So, would be nice (and even right) to be treated accordingly, I'd say.

Last edited by Ellenhard; 09/11/20 06:54 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It would be nice to get a survey. But I think @Sorcerv1tor's reddit and larian forum surveys had something like 110 each?

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

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


It seems a good idea to ask for feedback via in-game tools. People will vote without looking at the neighbor's opinions.

Joined: Jul 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Tuco; 09/11/20 07:14 AM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. You too can join the good fight HERE
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco

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

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

I think this is a very important point that doesn't get stressed enough. The people who take the time to properly analyze every aspect of the game could be a very valuable resource if Larian will properly use it

Last edited by Abits; 09/11/20 07:12 AM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
OP Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The problem with people expecting every bit of feedback to "matter" is that most of the feedback is actually only being given by a few dozen people at most, out of the million people who bought the game. They will probably pay attention to OVERWHELMING feedback on an issue, but the same 30 people posting over and over about something isn't actually that significant.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Last edited by Ellenhard; 09/11/20 07:43 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2020
To be fairly blunt.

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

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

But it is nice to know we'll be getting more companions, along with the slow update schedule; I've been wanting to see the basic classes added along with some do-gooders.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
I still think it's too soon to tell what Larian would do with all the feedback we provided. I hope sometime in the near future we will get some sort of response to the feedback, but I know for a fact at least some of Larian's developers read it. My impression is still the same - they weren't expecting so much sells at this point and right now just trying to find a way to address as much criticism as possible. I think Larian should do a better job clarifying it but this is how I see things. I added a link from a response by @The Composer:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719776#Post719776


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5