We just broke the highest number of concurrent Steam users at 875,343!

I don't question the quality of the game, I just don't feel that just doing Baldur's Gate again, twenty years later, really warrants ALL of the hype. Like the games from that time people still talk about, like Planescape Torment, Arcanum, even something like Fallout 2 or somewhat later Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines are games that are just a bit more "out there". Baldur's Gate feels comparably more vanilla compared to those. It's full of tropes and it does them well, but as far as I've played it doesn't always manage to rise above them and even from a design standpoint it is not that much different from original Baldurs Gate games.

I guess this is more of a lament about the state of the industry right now, but the fact that twenty years of gaming evolution leads to just doing the same types of games again but doesn't really fill me with that much excitement.

This the exact kind of hyperbole the thread op was just talking about. The "best d&d game ever made" is a highly subjective opinion. The amount of content is being massively overrated by the hype. Yeah, it's a solid amount, but BG2 had more content than this game 20 years ago especially when it comes to dialogue, since people can't be bothered to read without a voice actor doing it for them.

I'm really enjoying it but I'm also tired of how ridiculous and aggressively cultish fanboys get during the post release period. The game is far from perfect.

Those damn gamers and their expectations of receiving a quality product they pay for!

There is still stuff in here that other games have managed to fix like a decade ago, like being able to access all your characters inventory in the camp, having a place where all the books and texts you've read are collected, automatically picking up gold or merging the inventories of enemies when their bodies are close together. The quest log is just a void filled with text, without any flavor or convenience whatsoever, no way to click on a quest and see where the quest marker is or anything like that. Same with the map, there's no worldmap that shows the location of the individual maps on some larger scale that would help you orient yourself, no way to even switch between the different maps and all the fast travel points are just in one giant list. Also even in singleplayer I've not found an actual way to pause this game. For a game that was in early access for three years, these feel like basic things that never got the second round of polish they deserved.

Personally, I don't mind reading and I wish we'd get more games that don't require voice acting for everything. It'd allow them to do so much more with a lot less. I do think at some point we'll get that that point with synthesized voices, but it isn't quite there yet. I've used several in Ludum Dare games, and they sound great but not perfect. Still, even as they are if they let devs write more and create more options, I'd take it. Adding options with voice acting balloons work required fast, so that's why it's so often fake choice but the other person responds similarly no matter what you say.

Would need to lean on AI for something like that, I think. Keep the normal human-acted main cast/supporting characters, delegate everything else to AI.

It's already been done with a Skyrim mod.

Of all player deaths, 12% were caused by friendly fire. Nice spellcasting there, Dave!

I feel attacked.

For what it's worth - I work in the AAA game industry. Every AAA game collects those kinds of metrics, even "singleplayer only" ones.

They answer a few questions:

• Are things too strong and the player is dying too much? Too weak and the majority of players breeze through difficult sections?
• Are players getting lost/stuck? Are there softlocks or progression blockers?
• Where do players stop playing the game? Can we work out why those areas are more likely to stop playing?
• Are players going to certain areas? Are important areas being skipped? Are areas without a lot of content seeing more traffic than expected?
• What kinds of builds are players trying? Why are they playing those builds? Do they change builds midway through? Why?
• What NPCs are the players talking to? How do they interact with those NPCs?
• What do gamers do over the course of the lifetime of a game? What do hardcore passionate fans like? What do casual players like?

These sorts of data points are really critical for things like future patches or DLC. They help point out the places in the game that need love and adjustment going forward. (For example, how many people romance Karlach vs. Shadowheart? How many people go for the Underdark vs. the Mountain Pass? How many people investigate the Creche vs. skip Gith stuff entirely?)

For example - in a game I worked on, we saw a spike in players quitting the game at the section where they needed to crouch for the first time. This meant either crouch wasn't being taught well, crouch controls weren't intuitive, or something broke. A subsequent patch changed the crouch tutorial and the spike of players quitting went away.

Every single moment that is spent working on the game has a cost. The job of production is to ensure that development resources are spent in places that give the biggest bang for the buck. Places like the tutorial or early missions are super duper hyper important because 100% of players will see them. As things diverge, fewer segments of players see them - some players quit entirely, while others commit to one section of content over the other. You want to figure out where "most" players go and focus there, only moving down once those areas are fixed.

For example, 1/3 of players choose evil. So 1/3 of the time should be spent on the evil path, because why invest 75% of resources into something that 66% of players won't ever see? You still need something there, but when you need to make decisions, production (and publishers!) only drive decisions based on data.

Community feedback is biased. The loudest minority are the ones who choose to give feedback online. These are players who are highly invested in the game, much more than a "typical" player. But they represent a relatively small chunk of the player base - 5-10%, on the high end - and not a representative sample at that. While community feedback is important (and does drive many decisions, if only to make sure the Internet doesn't get mad), it isn't "good enough" for dev teams to focus on it exclusively. The numbers guys work in numbers, not sentiment.

So the data basically is used to say "Look: players are romancing XYZ more than we expected. We should invest more resources into making sure that their romance is rewarding" and if that's true it's likely that production will greenlight some dev time to work on that.

It can also be used for "Hey, players are seeing framerate drops in these areas, consistently. Can we have a patch that improves framerate here?" and production will balance that against everything else (how many more sales will be made by raising the quality bar and fixing the framerate in this spot?), create tickets, and triage them out for a future patch.

Then if Larian works on Baldur's Gate 4, data from Baldur's Gate 3 can help drive decisions. Should the dev team invest resources in a better character creator? What areas are really resonating with players - and how can a sequel replicate that? What areas were more disappointing than the dev team expected, and how can they be fixed? (For example, the devs seem surprised that the community has rejected Giths as much as they have - this isn't too surprising from the outside looking in, but it's easy to be blinded and lose sight of things like this when you work on a project for 4-5 years with dev goggles on.)

This is all super duper common data to collect, on any game. I wouldn't read too much into it; Larian is just being more open than most by sharing selections of that data with the community.

LOL well Larian made sure we were both happy with K&M or controller.

Did your conjured animal get attacked? My summoned quasit has invisibility.

Not necesarily. The thing I'm struggling with in BG3 is that I just don't like any of my party mates. I've got no interest in playing an evil playthrough, yet most of my party members are either outright evil, or simply self interested. We're not saving anything, we're not fighting for something bigger. We're just throw together by chance and are working on solving our shared predicmanet.

I'm just not invested in most of them or their stories, and the backstory for the background I chose has me doing evil things sometimes against my will. And all of my tough choices I get to make about exploring my history amount of "become more evil for power". I don't want to do evil things. I don't enjoy that game style

The game is amazing. But the story isn't coming close to grabbing me in the same way previous BG stories did, or the way the pathfinder NPCs did.

How would GOG know? The attraction of the platform is they hand you the game file and are done with you, no DRM, no tracking, no nothing.

Good luck with that. I bought it on gog, had to jump through hoops to have it install, only to have the download stall again the next day on a patch. They have to get their act together, I just wanted to play so got a refund and bought it on steam where it downloaded, installed and patched without a hitch...

Great advice. I don't own it either though. Just want to make him happy before I'm gone.