Talk:Baldur's Gate 3

Potential references/news

Here are a few articles that might contain information that's useful to reference/integrate into the article:

• IGN: Baldur's Gate 3 Officially Announced for PC and Google Stadia
• PC Gamer: Baldur's Gate 3 will combine the best of Divinity and D&D 5th Edition
• VentureBeat: Baldur’s Gate III is coming for PC and Stadia ‘when it’s ready,’ takes place after D&D’s Descent into Avernus
• Rock Paper Shotgun: Baldur's Gate 3 announced, from the creators of Divinity: Original Sin

• GameSpot: Baldur's Gate 3 Wants To Do What No Other RPG Has (this one's an interview with Larian Studios head Swen Vincke!)
• PCGamesN: “If you like D&D, you’ll be happy” – why Baldur’s Gate 3 will be the adaptation you want (another interview with Swen)

Feel free to point out others. V2Blast (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate III gameplay reveal coming from PAX East on Feb 27

The Baldur's Gate III twitter account posted this: https://twitter.com/baldursgate3/status/1229798130838835201?s=19

The World Gameplay Reveal of Baldur’s Gate 3 will be happening LIVE at PAX East on Thursday 27th February at 1530ET. Join Swen live on stage with a special guest, and if you can’t, we'll be streaming to YouTube so you can be involved no matter where you are in the world.

Not sure if it's worth including this info itself in the article, but at the least we'll presumably get some more info about the game then. V2Blast (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a link to the video of the event as reference, since multiple reverts were occurring about the fact that the game is turn-based, and this is where Larian announced and showcased it. I tried to find an official video from PAX East, but couldn't find one, so I took the one of a press account. Any would do really, but please make sure it can be accessed to everyone if you change it : the video from the Stadia account is marked as PEGI-something and youtube tries to force user to create an account to watch it. 93.23.249.248 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Platforms/storefronts

It may be worth noting in the article that the game will be coming to Steam (in Early Access) and GOG (though nothing seems to indicate it'll be in the "Early Access" equivalent there, "Games in development"). It also specifically won't be coming to the Epic Games Store; Swen has mentioned that they have no intention of making it exclusive to one storefront. I'm not sure where in the article this could be mentioned naturally, but it seems worth noting somewhere. V2Blast (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that's a good fit for the "Development" section, since it usually covers the whole "behind the scene" process and not just the actual coding. Although, it's valuable info until release, but maybe it won't be that worthy once released? I guess a subsection of the "Development" section, something like "Release plan", would help removing it easily post-release if editors feel like it. 93.23.105.164 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Will need a reliable secondary source calling out the storefronts, but under development is typically a "Release" subsection. -- ferret (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Date format (and English style)

Judging from the article history, the article has had the {{Use dmy dates}} template on it since Ythlev turned it from a redirect into an actual article at 5:18 am UTC on June 7, 2019. Likewise, Ythlev added the {{British English}} template to this talk page just 2 minutes later, at 5:20 am UTC on June 7, 2019. That said, per MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other" – I'm not sure what the reason for using British English specifically in the article is. The date format in particular is much more frequently relevant, as release dates appear in the infobox and throughout the article (as well as dates in citations and the like); I'm curious if there's a reason to prefer DMY dates over MDY in this case or if it's just because of the "first major contributor" (per MOS:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN).

Although Larian Studios is a Belgian company, the topic of the article certainly doesn't have strong national ties to the country of Belgium; if anything, it has stronger ties to Wizards of the Coast, the (American) publisher of Dungeons & Dragons. It feels a bit odd to have the Baldur's Gate III release date in DMY format, especially since the articles for the rest of the Baldur's Gate franchise all seems to use MDY format for dates – even those by Canadian developers such as BioWare and Beamdog. (Only the Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance article seems to have had the {{Use dmy dates}} template on it since Schmeater created the article on December 13, 2019, and the same arguments I've made here could be made there as well; there are barely any dates currently on that article other than citations anyway.)

In any case, MOS:DATERET allows for changing the existing format if "there are reasons for changing it based on [...] consensus on the article's talk page", so I'm trying to establish exactly that. MOS:DATEUNIFY only addresses the topic of consistency in date formats within a single article, but barring strong reasons to favor the current DMY format, I think it'd also be good to have a consistent (MDY) format within the articles for games in this franchise. I look forward to hearing people's perspectives, and hope others agree. V2Blast (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We're simply in RETAIN territory here. First contributor picks. Without a compelling argument to change, there is no reason to do so. WP:VG, as a project area, does not view Developer or Publisher as creating a "Strong national tie", as far as that argument goes. Consistency with other articles is not a MOS-backed argument. Your opening statements about ENGVAR not preferring any national variety applies just as much to using American english here as British English, so isn't an argument to change... but an argument to not to change. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Number in Title

First-hand sources for the game, such as the official website, indicate that the game's title is "Baldur's Gate 3" and not "Baldur's Gate III", despite the game's main logo image. That is to say, the title uses the Hindu-Arabic numeral "3" and not the Roman numeral "III".

Sources:

• https://baldursgate3.game/
• https://store.steampowered.com/app/1086940/Baldurs_Gate_3/
• https://www.gog.com/game/baldurs_gate_iii

Sabre (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What does the publisher call it in their releases? 2601:240:E200:3B60:6117:DC6C:871B:2237 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Forged with the new engine, Baldur's Gate 3 (...)". Would propose to rename this article to "Baldur's Gate 3" SpamHunters (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Moved This is obviously not only the Official name but the WP:COMMONNAME, which is what matters. Of all the sourcing currently in use, all refer to the game as "3", except for (haha) 3 of them. The sourcing is clearly in favor of "3". I would additionally add this probably was the case in 2019, when it was moved to "III" inappropriately. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cover art

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Rhain: When you revert, which is actually mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits, you are expected to give a valid reason in your edit summary. You wrote "better sizing" and "title" (The PNG file does not have as large a resolution as the JPG and there is barely any difference between the titles of the files that can be renamed, therefore both invalid as they do not make sense in this case). Since the reason for the change has already been presented in previous edit summaries, you are expected to explain your insistence on edit warring and removing the file (extension) that is more in line with the original source in a more descriptive, appropriate and understandable way per WP:DISPUTE. ภץאคгöร 12:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The JPG does NOT have the original width x height. Common cover art is shown at 250 × 400 pixels, which is more in line with PNG file. Since the PNG image does not remove necessary details to describe the game, you should also explain why the higher resolution without the "clearer quality" has to be used in the article. JPEG is not mandatory (and the actual problem is not the title or the extension), the page literally shows File:Gears of War 3 box artwork.PNG as an example. You have now violated the three-revert rule. ภץאคгöร 12:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that you just literally copy-pasted my contribution, "sourced from press kit", reaffirming what I wrote with your actions. It would be more appropriate to copy my work first, instead of WP:3RR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT... ภץאคгöร 12:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you starting a discussion. I have provided several explanations in my edit summaries, and ferret has summarised it well below, so I have little to add. But, just to clarify: no, I did not violate 3RR. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, @Nyxaros. If we're going to clear this issue up, you're going to have to stop accusations of bad faith towards other editors. For example, you accused me of a "fixation on this issue" and "unconstructive editing", when I made a clearly explained single revert of your unexplained change to the image. I explained there was no reason to reupload the image, which is very much true. In violation of WP:BRD, you put your image back, along with your bad faith accusation edit summary. Rhain then reverted again, because again, the existing JPG image is suitable. The JPG was resized by Datbot in compliance with WP:IMAGERES, so that argument for switching is a bit hollow. In response, you've accused Rhain of edit warring and not giving valid reasons to revert you. Rhain did give valid reasons, you just disagree. MOS:VG clear prefers JPG for this, as does WP:IUP#FORMAT: Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format. The example of the Gears of War 3 box on the MOS is not regarding image format but image naming. To be honest, that is a terrible example since it violates another MOS guideline. FURTHER MORE: The actual press kit contains a jpg, which means you personally altered the official image and changed the format. In short, I continue to oppose your image switch. Please stop edit warring. Especially as your edit summaries contain false claims, such as the PNG being the original press kit format (it's not) or that the aspect ratio changed (All images are the same 0.66 ratio). -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not claim "PNG being the original press kit format". Don't try to read other meanings into what I have written. 257 × 387 is clearly not the same as 250 × 375. I wrote "the actual problem is not the title or the extension". Is there a requirement or not? There isn't. If there was, the "not regarding image format but image naming" example would be .jpg. Lower resolution did not remove necessary details to describe the game, and there is no rule to not upload a lower resolution with clearer quality from the actual original source, invalidating bot edit. There is no case where extension change from the source is prohibited either. You object to what I wrote, but for some reason you copy-paste PNG's entire content into the JPG and thus reaffirming what I wrote and citing the file extension as your "only reason". Since I am wrong and you are so insistent, just copy-paste in the first place, fixing the file, and move on without causing edit warring. (And the fact that you wrote "The press kit differs from what you uploaded".) ภץאคгöร 13:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No one copy and pasted the PNG's content to the JPG. Rhain re-uploaded the official JPG, properly resized. There's a difference. The press kit contains a JPG, Rhain uploaded a JPG. You uploaded a PNG, which means you altered the file to a wholly different format. -- ferret (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? You clearly have no idea about this topic and still try to defend something. That user literally downloaded the official kit from the page you didn't even know existed until I added it as a source for the PNG file, and also copy-pasted the other content I added despite never agreeing with me. I want to close the issue, but you still try to continue and choose to reply with an unbeneficial comment. Give me a break. Move on. ภץאคгöร 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I "copied" was the link to the press kit. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand the issue here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that why this is the same as my contribution, down to the template change and kit link in parentheses? You have already shown that you did not understand "the issue here" from the beginning, by using the file added by the other party even though you did not "agree" with it. You revealed your true intentions. Persisting with misinformation is unnecessary. I wrote "Move on." ภץאคгöร 08:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned, that is why it is very similar. I did not use any file "added by the other party"; I used the JPG after I uploaded a new version. Not sure what "true intentions" or "misinformation" you're cryptically and dramatically referring to, but I agree with your last sentence and would recommend taking your own advice. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A "new" version that is from the file page that I created. I am the "other party". You have trouble understanding these, but it's fine when it comes to using other people's contributions in a disreputable manner even if you don't "agree" with them. You are the one who continues to defend yourself with empty words. The discussion is over. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it. ภץאคгöร 11:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no trouble understanding, just baffled as to why it mattered in the first place. No worries, it's not hard to stomach, and I promise I can live with it. All the best. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry, WHAT?

Upon its release, the game ignited a debate about the current state of gaming. Larian Studios garnered significant praise for achieving a feat that numerous other AAA gaming companies often struggle to deliver. This is particularly noteworthy given the well-known instances of video game releases plagued by substantial bugs and technical issues.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the controversy pushing the POV of a vocal minority of toxic, entitled gamers. The controversy revolves aroung BG3 setting unrealistic expectations for game developers who are already being overworked and still risking bankruptcy with every release. The game developers' perspective should be taken into account, if not given the greater weight as that is what the mainstream consensus is echoing - as opposed to the tiresome whining of a bunch of angry youtube gamerbros like EndymionTV. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the text a bit to show that these are opinions from gaming press and not facts. OceanHok (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Remowing wikivoice is an improvement, but it doesn't change the fact that this is an outlier opinion. The wide spread view involves concerns about setting unrealistic expectations for videogame developers (and SOME PEOPLE using BG3 to punch down against developers who are being pushed to their limits by the industry to meet existing expectations that are already unrealistic). 46.97.170.235 (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I see there was some discussion about this passage, I'm unconvinced by the complaints here seeing as they lack any sort of citations for support and the obvious POV-pushing language, but removed the text anyway for seeming fairly undue. XeCyranium (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, pretty much every reliable gaming media outlet has covered the controversy of BG3 setting unrealistic expectations. There are plenty of sources. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Best game ever made

Can we add this game in list of best game ever made? 46.56.215.43 (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, as it does not pass that list's criteria yet. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound

I understand that Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound was a separate production, but how important is it that we have a separate page for the past attempt at this title? Couldn't the main points of it be merged into this? After all, games like Team Fortress 2 and Mewgenics had previous attempts that don't need to be digressed upon. BOTTO _(T•C) 16:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge it here, as the prior development effort has almost nothing, if anything at all, to do with this iteration. Maybe the main series article. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes from "Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition"

"For example, the combat system is more in favour of the player than in the tabletop version, to make the game more enjoyable."

This is a snippet from the Development section on the page. I feel like this statement is too unspecific, but I'm unsure of a direction to try to fix it.

Baldur's Gate 3#Development AlarathTheMage (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of what can be sourced properly. BOZ (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Brasil Game Awards

Hi Dissident93, what's the issue with the Brasil Game Awards (apart from the miss-spelling of Brasil!)? Just because the awards don't have an article themselves shouldn't be an issue. There is a recognised imbalance in WP coverage, generally favouring the U.S./English-speaking world. Nonetheless, the convention which incorporates and organises the awards does indeed have its own article: Brasil Game Show. The entry was referenced, the referenced article explains that the awards are decided by a panel of journalists (which is probably more objective than the likes of the partly fan-voted The Game Awards 2023!). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

VentureBeat specifically called it out when highlighting the awards the game has racked up (emphasis added by me): "In addition to Game of the Year, Baldur's Gate 3 also took home the Herman Melville Award for Best Writing in a Game. Its other Game of the Year trophies include The Game Awards, The Golden Joysticks, The Steam Awards and the Brazil Game Awards. It's also collected a myriad of other such awards, for RPG experience, character performance and writing across multiple award shows." Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It can be added to prose but not the table per WP:VG/AWARDS, which states "For the table, only include awards where either the awards individually are notable (e.g. Seumas McNally Grand Prize) or the awards body as a whole is notable (e.g. The Game Awards); omit individual publication awards and ranked lists from the table." ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 am I missing something? The awards body, Brasil Game Show, appears to be notable. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And there seems to be at least a 3:1 consensus that the awards are notable; and they they should be included here. How can the premier video game awards for the whole of Latin America not be notable?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun I do think consensus is forming here, but I don't think we need to rush towards an answer either. Let's make sure we don't edit war while discussion continues. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I know I literally just said this, but in lieu of the new information below, I've gone ahead and reverted. We cannot conflate two separate organizations as one. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Remove Brazil Game Awards (BGA), being added to the accolades table, is not the same as the Brasil Game Show. The site in question is https://brazilgameawards.com.br/quem-somos/ which claims that the BGA is an independent jury that "brings together video game outlets and critics" to choose the "best games at the Brasil Game Show (BGS)". In short, it is not directly affiliated with BGS. It goes on to clarify that after 2018, it began evaluating games with no link or tie to BGS at all. The BGA are not part of BGS, and are not demonstrated to be notable on their own. @Dissident93, Bastun, and Sariel Xilo: With this information now laid out, it's clear the removal is correct. BGA is not BGS. BGS is notable, BGA has not been demonstrated to be. It appears to be a small almost informal organization. -- ferret (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, my bad Ferret - my reading was it was the BGS doing the awarding. Thanks for the further research. Note that the revert of the inclusion is breaking the table, though, and I can't see where the missing "|" or "|-" is. I'm going to re-insert temporarily, to do a clean removal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't work out how to fix the table, sorry. It looks to be offset by one column, from the end of 2023. I've reverted back to 'broken table' rather than leave them in. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun It was the rowspan on the year 2023 row. I have fixed. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop editing in "it won every major award"

There is 0 concensus or agreement by award shows, publicists and award winners on what is considered a major award. A couple articles calling baldurs gate 3 the first game to win every "major" award does not automatically change the concensus. Until there is such an agreement on what is considered a major award, stop putting this in 80.5.214.210 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, there has been zero acknowledgement on other games wikipedia pages that cite it won 1/2/3/4/x major awards, this has never been a thing people have acknowledged 80.5.214.210 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be an established consensus that the current wording is fine. Are your purposefully ignoring the references provided?Edit warring is not helping your cause. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is this established consensus then? I will 100% conceed if you source it 80.5.214.210 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about WP:CONSENSUS as it pertains Wikipedia. You have been reverted before by Vicquemare and by myself, so there are at least wo people who disagree with you. And considering the article was already written and expanded in its current form by several users, it looks like there is a consensus to keep the current wording. I have issued you a warning on edit warring. Please stop reverting. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Add my voice in support of keeping this, as I've also included this detail at 2023 in video games. Even if you go back more than ten years before the Game Awards, and consider only the Golden Joysticks, BAFTA, GDC, and DICE I don't recall any game sweeping those four. — Masem (t) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

To get back on topic, the major awards listed on wikipedia include the japan game awards. So the language should not reflect that it won "all" major awards. It has won 5 out of 6. LemonLime1000 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We include the Japan awards on the tables there because of the importance of Japan to the industry. Shouldn't be taken as contrast to statements made by reliable sources — Masem (t) 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So the japan awards is important enough for that page but not important enough to be considered over a few articles online claiming those to be the only 5 major awards? LemonLime1000 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You were the one editing back multiple people changing the wording. This talk was opened in good faith to discuss and you were still changing it back and putting missleading edit reasons in the history. LemonLime1000 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to point you that you issued me a warning after *you* were the one reverting others changes. Only after this talk was set up you then reverted my change, claimed consensus where there wasn't any reached then warned me for the exact thing you're doing. Wikipedia isn't about this, ego shouldn't get in the way of information. I would like to see someone issue you with the same warning since you are guilty of this. 80.5.214.210 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The history shows you removing the bit three times in 24 hours. I reverted you twice. With Masem, there are three people disagreeing with you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You 100% acted in bad faith and against wikipedia etiquette and is now trying to gaslight in this talk page. Many different people disagreed with it and I edited back your reverting you were doing to other people and is now trying to gaslight the talkpage into thinking other people started the edit war. It was only after the talk page was opened up you and a concensus was reached here you claimed there was one all along and there wasn't one. Don't give anyone the "what are you talking about rubbish" Calm down and take a break. LemonLime1000 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Larian themselves just released a community update where they too mention this fact. Don't know why are you so concerned by this simple observation. Vicquemare (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I 100% conceed on the point now but you 100% acted in bad faith and against wikipedia etiquette and is now trying to gaslight in this talk page. Many different people disagreed with it and I edited back your reverting you were doing to other people and is now trying to gaslight the talkpage into thinking other people started the edit war. It was only after the talk page was opened up you and a concensus was reached here you claimed there was one all along and there wasn't one. Don't give anyone the "what are you talking about rubbish" Calm down and take a break. LemonLime1000 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Eh sorry, meant to reply to soetermans with this. LemonLime1000 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You bring up claim "many different people disagreed with it", but somehow I am "gaslighting". Sure thing. Consensus is clear, you conceded the point. Time to move on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes the Consensus is clear NOW after we discussed it. You were undoing multiple people who were editing it and they didnt wanna discuss it here so NOW we have reached a consensus. You were breaking wikipedia etiquette BEFORE and lying about your edit reasons and lied in this talk saying there was a consensus. We both know you fully understand what i'm saying and you don't want to admit this. I'm no longer replying to someone whos this obnoxious and stubborn, and have their ego tied to a wikipedia article. Muting you. LemonLime1000 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know how a history page works. It shows the history of an article, you can look up old revisions. The history shows I made two reverts on April 17, here and here. Both times I reverted the edits by the same IP address. Not "multiple people" at all. You disagreeing with what constitutes a major game award is fine. Repeatedly taking out the bit in quick succession isn't. Being accusatory and petty isn't. Saying I am lying and calling me "obnoxious" isn't. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you are immediately taking an uncivil tone. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)