I Worry Baldur's Gate 3 Will Be A Ship Of Theseus In A Few Years

One of the reasons has such a huge and loyal fanbase is that it is very receptive to feedback. had a long early access period and changed ex𒅌tensively throughout development, shaped heavily by player feedback on what was working and what wasn’t. These changes from things as big as the tone of the game to smaller things like character models. The game has now been officially released for months, but Larian is continuing to make regular changes. There have already been six major patches, some that focused primarily on fixing bugs and some that have started adding things on top of everything we already know and love.

It’s very easy for us to see this as a good thing. Bugs continue getting fixed, the game gets more content, and players feel heard because their criticisms are being taken seriously and acted on. But I’m not so sure that it’s an unqualified positive, 168澳洲幸运5开๊奖网:because I’ve been thinking about Dead Cells.

The Pseudo-Live Service Game

It was announced this month that would finally fully leave active development and remain in existence the way it is now. There was some complaining. In the article linked above I explained that Dead Cells has received expansions every year since release and that it has already received five years of updates, but players were still upset when it was announced that there would be no further updates. It’s my view that expansions are extras and never a given, and the frequency of updates to Dea🌊d Cells set an unhealthy precedent that this would be a game that continued to grow forever.

Of course, Dead Cells isn’t the only game that’s done this – there’s strong incentive to continue updating a game years after it’s originally released because it can lead to success and player loyalty if don🎀e well. The pseudo-live service game, maintained for years after release with con⛄stant updates because of player demand, is practically a genre of its own at this point. No Man’s Sky’s regular expansions and updates gave it its famous redemption arc. Deep Rock Galactic implemented seasons and a free battle pass a year and a half after its initial release, drawing inspiration from fans. Don’t Starve was released as a single-player survival game and ended up with multiple expansions, including the addition of multiplayer.

It’s so easy to fall into this pattern. A developer makes a hit, gets a steady and intensely♑ loyal fanbase, and ends up working on it for years. And because these games often end up being high-profile because they’re so well-loved, there’s pressure on other developers to do the same thing and work on games for years, even a decade.

Patches Versus Expansions

Comparing these games to Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t quite accurate, since those games are very mechanics-based and Baldur’s Gate 3 is a very narrative-heavy game. As much as we may dream about it, we aren’t likely to see expansions on expansions for BG3 because it is very co෴mplicated to do so. The changes made to, say, Dead Cells, and those made to BG3 are going to be very different – Dead Cells gets expansions, and Baldur’s Gate 3’s patches change things that already exist.

That’s why I think about the Ship of Theseus when I think about Baldur’s Ga♐te 3’s future. The thought experiment is as follows: if you maintain a ship for a hundred years, replacing every part of the ship over that time, is it still the same ship that it was before the maintenance? The changes to Baldur’s Gate 3 are additions, like the Magic Mirror that allows you to change your appearance at will. There are detractions, like bug fixing. And then there are swaps, where gameplay is altered in a way that concretely changes aspects of the game.

There have already been changes major enough to cause a stir. Some of these are minor, and can be interpreted as bringing the game closer to what it was originally intended to be, like fixing bugs and slowing down romances. But some are major, and their intentions are less clear. Where characters end up after the game's events got changed. 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Gortash&rsꦛquo;s letters in the game changed, tweaking his characterisation. It became possible to recruit Minthara without first committing mass murder of innocent refugees, 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:which I vehemently disagreed with.

Where Is The Line?

I’m thinking here about authorial intent. There are very few acciden♊ts when it comes to art – most things are done intentionally and deliberately to create a specific reaction. At what point are the changes Larian is now making for its players infringing on what was originally intended?

The changes to Gortash’s letters are innocuous enough. Uneven characterisation or over-dramatisation is a fair thing to want to fix, but I think those letters are part of what𝐆 made Gortash the character we saw him as. But the Minthara thing was clearly because players were tying themselves in knots trying to recruit her in their good runs, and it was the wrong choice. Kissing animations are added because players want them. What else will be added or changed because players ask? How long will Larian continue to change this game, and how much will change? In five years, will the characters people fell in love with during their first playthrough end up being different versions of themselves?

I don’t think this outcome is a certainty by any means. But I do think that this willingness to give players what they ask for is an unhe༒althy trend that, while garnering games loyal followings and long-lasting fandoms, devalues the work of developers by diluting their original intents and more importantly, keeps them stuck on projects for much longer than they should be. I worry that Ba💫ldur’s Gate 3 will become a version of itself that wasn’t part of the original vision because Larian, too generously, wanted to give players too much. It’s already one of the best games of the decade. Better kissing animations won’t change much.