Skip Navigation
14 comments
  • One of the reasons why we trimmed the epilogue is because we were afraid the ending cinematics were becoming too long and would detract from the epicness of the experience.

    Deception check critical failure. Larian pls.

    I was willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some disjointed writing/quests in Act 3 if they were pushing for a quicker release, but now they come out and say

    It’s just important to know that what ultimately shipped was planned long ago, in function primarily of making Baldur’s Gate 3 fun to play, not for us to close development quickly.

    Well... more power to you I guess, though I really, really hope they're just bullshitting and will make a Definitive Edition in a year or so.

    • How do you know those quests aren't the result of events not triggering?

      • Because some Act 3 content was scrapped in a way that leaves hanging threads with no resolution, awkwardly pointing you to things that were changed/removed, such as:


        Personally I think in Act 3 general pacing is a bit wacky, also the amount of quests there are in Lower City is overwhelming. Is this a result of moving a bunch of quests that were originally intended for Upper City? No way to find out.

        Of course it's perfectly normal to cull content that seems too ambitious, time consuming etc., Larian just didn't properly cauterize what was left after removing all that stuff, which made the story flow really weird in some cases.

        Also in the release Panel From Hell (timestamp here) it was mentioned that Crystal, the associate writing lead spent 6 months working on various ending permutations, and now we don't get to see most of them because they're too long. Oof.

    • I didn't follow the game in early access before this year, but this is the first misstep I've seen from them on messaging so far. Having a large section of the game ship with scripting issues and following it up with an abbreviated ending wasn't what was "planned long ago."

      If I'm being totally honest, this reads like someone high up was annoyed (or embarrassed, more likely) by the cut content discussion and felt the need to respond. The rest of the paragraph is where they should have left it, because they're right: there's enough content, and every game has cuts. The number of loose ends that weren't tied up makes it a little more obvious than usual, sure, but that's the game that was shipped. Developers usually don't comment on this sort of thing, and for good reason.

      They're doing everything right with what they have at this point in the release cycle. That doesn't need to be accompanied by a ham-fisted attempt to spin the cut content discussion into fixes for Minthara, or borderline arrogant messaging in general. Just lay out what you have planned. People will be happy.

14 comments