Talk:Baldur's Gate 3

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleBaldur's Gate 3 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2025Good article nomineeListed
July 11, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 28, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the video game Baldur's Gate 3 won so many awards that its creators collected them in rotating teams to avoid impacting development?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 8, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Potential references/news

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Platforms/storefronts

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Date format (and English style)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number in Title

[edit]

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:

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

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

Cover art

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very old thread, but this IP is right. There's loads of coverage on this. I'm not entirely sure where it would go, but it could definitely be sourced. Jason Schreier has quite a long analysis piece pushing back on the notion (it's linked in the bibliography as of today). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best game ever made

[edit]

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

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

Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changes from "Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition"

[edit]

"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)[reply]

It's a matter of what can be sourced properly. BOZ (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the changes are in the article now; as of the current version, they are included in footnotes [b] and [i]. B could use a slight tweak to wording, now that I'm seeing it again... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brasil Game Awards

[edit]

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!). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Dissident93 am I missing something? The awards body, Brasil Game Show, appears to be notable. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun It was the rowspan on the year 2023 row. I have fixed. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing in "it won every major award"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Improvements

[edit]

Hey, folks. I'm hoping to get this article to GA so will be making some changes. I've been doing a lot of this work in my sandbox but I'm going to migrate most of it onto the main page now that Development onwards is done. My plans will be visible here on what I'm picturing. Work in progress. I haven't started on Gameplay and believe there's more than enough coverage for three more sections on Reception (Music, Performance, Combat). Open to feedback and very happy to discuss. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After trying it out, it breaks too many references in the Gameplay section to be worth it right now. Hopefully I should be finished that in a day or two. Apologies. Still very happy to get feedback (see sandbox), and especially interested in useful sources I've missed. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ImaginesTigers, there were some unnecessarily formatted piped links ([[Baldur's Gate|''Baldur's Gate'']], [[Divinity: Original Sin II|''Divinity: Original Sin II'']] instead of just Baldur's Gate, Divinity: Original Sin II), WP:EASTEREGG links ([[Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn|its sequel]], [[Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound|third game]] instead of "its sequel Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, third game Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound) and downright incorrect links ([[Game|alone]], instead of single-player). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: Thank you for this. I'll get those fixed. I got some feedback yesterday about including the years of releases in the lead, so I think you're right that just naming the first and second games outright makes more sense—I was trying to conserve space in one of the longer sections. Concerning the formatting, I rarely format links manually so I'm guessing that piping is something Visual Editor did. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soetermans I'm not absolutely desperate to keep (BG3) in the lead, but someone had it added to League of Legends because of the redirect. I think it's useful to use in the main body on this article, so my preference would be to keep it here (whereas I'd honestly quite like if it disappeared from League's article). Happy to discuss. Appreciate the copy edit! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no problem, I haven't got any hard feelings on the matter. I'll try to copy edit the article some more tomorrow, so we won't have any edit conflicts. Another question: shouldn't there be one head writer listed in the infobox? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can write the sections I mention below in my sandbox—only adding in references to the mainspaced article until they're done—so we should be okay on ec front; please go ahead. Regarding lead writer... I'm not totally sure. Infobox video game says:
The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios listed before the game's story/script writers.
  1. If a single person is credited as "lead writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "scenario director" or "scenario writer";
  2. If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here;
  3. List no more than three people in this field.
I have a general preference for attributing as many creatives as we can, especially given how present Vincke is across the article, so I don't see any harm in keeping them both. If there's a MOS:VG rule I'm forgetting, though, no problem—we can take someone out. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers I don't have the time to break it down line by line now, but to me, most of the recent changes are objectively worse. The prose now feels like a 4-year-old wrote it. I have no idea what made you think that wholesale changes to such a stable article needed to be done, as opposed to strategic interventions to bring it to GA status. Melmann 13:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to participate at the open peer review (if you find some time) – that would be criterion 1a. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having added a fair amount of content and replacing all existing references on the Gameplay section, I have re-posted into mainspace. I still need to write sections on the game's combat and social elements, but it's getting there! I will make substantial changes to the Setting and Characters sections. I suspect an interested editor could create Characters of Baldur's Gate 3 or similar from the sourcing I put together for that, which would allow me to streamline it if it gets too large. I will not make substantial changes to the Plot section. Still outstanding is a section on the game's Music (I split Release off into a sub-heading to provide space for that in under Development) and Reception expansion (chiefly performances/voice acting & combat systems). Additionally, I removed the awards table and placed it in the newly created List of awards received by Baldur's Gate 3 (which could be added to the BG template). Thank you, and appreciate any feedback/copy editing — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanexo: I didn't mean to undo your edit (I didn't notice it until now), but doesn't the absence of a time frame in "one of the greatest video games" make it clear that it is from all time (rather than, say, the past 5 years)? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Just want to flag that I wish you had included a bit more clarity above when you said you were replacing the existing references as that didn't indicate to me you were changing the reference style entirely (WP:CITEVAR). I would have mentioned I oppose changing it so citations are no longer visible in the visual mode; for disability reasons, I find the new source style way less accessible. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: The main response so far has been "I hate your referencing for VG content". Given this, too, I've restored the pre-update version and will convert the style back before re-mainspacing. I don't know how the other system works, there's a lot of references, and I'm pretty burned out, so please bear with me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush! I really like your improvements otherwise. Since this is a highly trafficked article, getting it to GA would be great. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hacked it up with some fancy find-and-replace, and now restored ImaginesTigers updates with the references in a more standard style for mostly-web citations. --PresN 01:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, this is incredibly kind of you. Thank you so much for that effort and time—I am deeply appreciative. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you saw, I restored back to the full template used before I started reworking it. Without PresN's reformatting, this would've been a time-consuming nightmare—he made it much easier by providing a very systematic reference, with little deviation, for find and replacements. Unsung hero here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

[edit]

I decided to post here with what I've found for the infobox. Signing these messages separately so people can reply individually.

  • Writing Director:
  • Lead Writer

According to the game's end credits (YouTube):

  • Lead Writer:
  • Adam Smith
  • Associate Lead Writer:
  • Chrystal Ding
  • Principal Writer:
  • Jan Van Dosselaer
  • Sarah Baylus

Per the Writer field policy at Infobox video game quoted above, I'm going to add Smith, Ding and Baylus into the infobox, in order of appearance in the end-game credits. It asks us to include people attributed "lead writer"; we have this (above); and we are limited to listing 3 individuals. Happy to discuss. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: I agree with you about the writers; for now, we can keep Ding. Video games are a big effort, so I'm keen to preserve creative names in infoboxes if we can, and we have reliable sourcing supporting both of them are "Lead Writers". We could include Baylus with the BBC basis on that basis, but I agree with leaving her off given Dosselaer appears to share her role (I can't validate the YouTube video's authenticity or publisher). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a non-credits source supporting Joachim Vleminckx for the artist field. If anyone knows of such a source, I can add him back in. I found Alena Dubrovina mentioned as "recently promoted to art director" in PC Gamer 2024, but it says she was lead character artist on BG3. For now, I have swapped them. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubrovina's promotion came after the game's release; she was the lead character artist on the game, while Vleminckx was the art director, so I've restored the latter. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
@Rhain: Same issue again about my edits re-forcing an old version of the infobox (sigh). I've removed Dubrovina. Can you please provide a non-YT source for Vleminckx? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👀 ☔

Concerning Producer, the in-game credits list David Walgrave as "Producer", so we want him in there. Eurogamer describes him as "executive producer" (Eurogamer 2020) (not useful for us). We've got "senior producer" from Polygon 2020, which should be what we need to include him. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Programmer", I think this field feels outdated and I would prefer not to include the game's technical directors (as we currently do). Infobox video game's documentation mentions that the field may be more useful for old video games. The comparison with "Writer" is interesting because "Lead Writer" is likely the most senior narrative role responsible for producing prose (ie., I can't find any articles stating that Dosselaer wrote anything, but there are loads for Smith, Ding and Baylus). Additionally, I can't find a single source crediting either of them as the technical director (outside of the credits). I have removed them from this field. Does anyone have any objections on removing technical directors Van Semmertier and Metby from the Programmer field? (Pinging Rhain as I think you may be interested in the infobox/have different views from me.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox documentation specifically lists "technical director" as acceptable for |programmer=, so I've restored Van Semmertier and Metby. The |writer= field should also be limited to "lead writer" per the documentation, which would leave only Smith; as "associate lead writer", Ding may be acceptable to include, but only naming one of the two "principal writers" (Baylus but not Van Dosselaer) doesn't seem like the right call. I would recommend keeping only Smith. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhain: Can you please provide a source for Van Semmertier and Metby? I don't mind removing Dubrovina, but I don't feel great having them there unsourced (even if they appear on a YouTube video I can't validate); they'll likely be removed down the line for this reason.
PS. Didn't mean to undo your edit. The same thing happened with Ethan's edit above and not sure why it doesn't tell me there's an edit conflict when I'm editing an old version of the page. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source would be the game's credits; this could be cited directly using {{Cite video game}}, but it's generally understood to be implied. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair! I thought we needed an actual source for infoboxes. Thanks Rhain, appreciate the help — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added BG3 under Cite video game because it enables me to cite the game's dedication to cinematics lead Jim Southworth. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain: I believe we should remove the technical directors because including them goes against the spirit of what is intended by the field.

  • The doc is quite clear that this field is less applicable to modern development: This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position.
  • The infobox says we should only substitute If a single person is credited as "lead programmer", with synonyms for this person including technical director. The "this person" makes it clear that multiple people would be inappropriate.

If you disagree, we could go to WT:VG, DRN, or open an RFC? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation uses the word "person" interchangeably with "people" fairly frequently; I don't think the phrasing is intended to limit it to only one single person. For instance, it uses the words programmers and names, and specifically says If three or more people are credited as "lead programmer", discuss whether one played the most significant part; since this game has two such people (with a synonymous title), it seems logical to include them both here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely nothing wrong with including a single person but that's not the case here because BG3 is a complex triple-A release (ie., the scenario the template warns us about).
The first line—If a single person is credited as "lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position may include "technical director"—is for instances where there is a single person. It is the only case saying it is an appropriate substitution, and that's not the case with BG3 (see below).
  • The end game credits has at least 4 staff whose titles include "Lead Programmer" (eg., Lead Gameplay Programmer; Lead UI Programmer; Lead Engine Programmer; Lead Tools Programmer etc).
The main issue I have is the (misleading) "Programmer" tag on the infobox when applied to individuals with management positions. Do you want to make a post at WT:VG? We can probably get an outcome faster there than DN/RFCing it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A WTVG post may be helpful, but my opinion is that the programmer field should not be used for this article. For any large team, "lead programmer" is not an actual position the same way "director" or "writer" is; no one person is in charge of the entire codebase in a technical sense, and individuals may instead be the head of specific elements like UI or engine. --PresN 16:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: This is why I find the Writer field frustrating, too. Adam Smith is credited as the lead writer, but we know each of the ten companions had different writers dedicated to them (these writers are attributed in the Characters section).
Writing the game was a group effort, and (from what I have read so far) we can't clearly distinguish between Smith's contributions versus others. For example, Jan Van Dosselaer, whose final credit was Principal Writer, but seems to have had the title "lead writer" earlier:
  • Our lead writer, Jan van Dosselaer, has been working for us for I think 10 years as well. So he's really - it's not a "big name" - but to me he's really good at what he does, like a lot of the a lot of the really good writing is typical for him. When you really know the people that are working on the dialogue, you can recognise it and say "This guy's probably written by that writer". (Eurogamer 2020)
I'm a bit frustrated by the idea of the infobox here because it's misrepresenting /simplifying a very complex development process. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Baldur's Gate 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 17:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MathKeduor7 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I love this game. I'll review the article (it may take a month, although!). MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MathKeduor7: Hey, I appreciate you taking this up but a month is quite a long time and I think I would prefer putting it back in the queue to waiting a month to finish it.
For most other articles I wouldn't mind but given the topic I was hoping this would be a quick one so that I could push to FAC before real life gets busy again in August. I have signed up to the pledge system specifically to accelerate it too. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four days then. MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very gracious, thank you. Even a week or so would be great. A month to 4 days is a big difference – I don't want to cause stress if you have commitments. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'll starting checking the sources right now. I'll keep you informed. MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are used hundreds of different sources in this article. I will not read/check them all, but a random sample of 37. This will be done after I read the current version of the article. This decision is backed by WP:GANI. I'll keep you informed. MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted something wrong: I've written that players gain stats when they level up. I need to delete that (levelling up is covered at the bottom of that paragraph).
And I need to move the bit about attributes to character creation, with a new source. I have been awake for 21 hours now so I am not able to fix if now, but will do tomorrow in a few hours when I wake up again. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good sleep! MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the stats issue! Sorry about that. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: So far all the sources I've read are backing the contents properly. I think this will be a quick GA pass review. MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Judgment

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Congratulations, ImaginesTigers! This article is GA quality level. MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the video game Baldur's Gate 3 won so many awards that Larian Studios sent rotating teams of developers to collect them to avoid impacting development?
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I've included an alt in case the first feels like puffery.
Improved to Good Article status by ImaginesTigers (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Baldur's Gate 3

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Hello! I'd like to nominate as a featured article candidate in the near future, so figured I'd drop it here for some low-stress feedback. If you don't know BG3, it was a highly acclaimed turn-based role-playing game released in 2023. Any feedback is welcome and I'm happy to provide reciprocal reviews. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Look, I have to finish a FAC and another video game PR. Nevertheless, I'll add this to my reminder of things that I should do. I'll most likely start my review by the end of this week or at the beginning of the next week. I'll do a prose and source review. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vacant – I'm very grateful for you volunteering your time to help. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

Will also put this on the ol' to-do list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant – thanks PMC! Looking forward to it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

[edit]

Sorry about being slow on this one. Lots of distractions out there.

  • I'm not so sure about "stylized" for the roman numeral "III" version. I don't think there's a good fix for this as just "also" makes it sound like an actually different title, and going into the weeds would be a distraction in the first sentence. Just venting.
  • This was a recent edit by another editor. I agree with you that it looks silly, especially when read aloud, but I tend not to revert simple things like this. From a redirect perspective, I think it should say "BG3" here.
  • Myself, I would refer to Wizards of the Coast as just "Wizards" with a capital W, rather than "WotC", which feels a tad more informal to me. No biggie though.
  • Fair feedback. I think "Wizards of the Coast (Wizards)" looks a little sillier. I'll leave this for now but understanding the feedback.
  • I'm not sure the lede should end on a kicker of the Big $$$$ it made for Larian & WotC. Sales / influence, yes, profits feels a little tawdry. It's fine when this is an acknowledged goal, but even in cases like that like Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, the lead doesn't close on "Grant made his fortune back."
  • Sadly I feel I can't win here. Originally, I ended it like this, but someone else changed it to the current wording.
  • Optional: There's only two time signatures cited for Statsenko. Rather than use rps, I'd just use time=1:23,5:29 to move that into the citation and skip the rp template. Or make the 5:29 a short footnote cite referring to the other with at=5:29. (But I really don't like using RP unless there's like 10 different cites to different locations.) Same with the Ding reference.
  • When a character has used all of their resources, the player ends the character's turn. - I think the phrasing, while okay, could be improved here. "When the player has finished the available actions for a character, their turn ends" perhaps?
  •  Done
  • Outcomes are determined through hidden dice rolls. This is too vague to be helpful. What's the sentence trying to say? That dice rolls influence combat in general, or is it trying to distinguish open dice rolls the player sees vs. behind-the-scenes dice rolls? As is, it sounds like the entire fight might come down to some hidden dice rolls, which isn't quite accurate.
  • From the source: Combat itself is calculated through hidden dice rolls. Like D&D, this adds a bit of uncertainty to the equation. I've made some tweaks using information in the previous sentence (and mitigating a WP:CLOP issue).
  • Shar, the goddess of loss Up to you, but maybe "night and loss"? "Loss" without context might be a little misleading.
  • Not supported by the source, but I don't think it's misleading: loss is very relevant to Shadowheart's narrative arc (far moreso than night, which feels aesthetic): the loss of her memories, her family, etc.

Stopped after "Development" for now. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This PR is technically closed but I'm never against improvements! Just as a heads up though – it isn't likely I will continue work on this in the near future as my time is very short right now. I have another PR open (for Odyssey) but I will likely close it down soon too. Life's got in the way. – ImaginesTigers 09:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed - Reception

[edit]

I'm leaving this as a note here in case anybody has someone familiarity with sourcing, but I think the major area left to cover is Reception. We have essentially 3 time periods to cover:

  1. Reception to the early access
  2. Reception upon official launch
  3. Reception to post-release updates

Sitting alongside these are platform-specific reviews and feedback. This is a lot of material for the reception section to cover, so I am not currently sure on how to structure it all without the section becoming much too big. It may mean I have not summarised the critical reception for the full launch concisely enough, and I should provide less quotations from individual reviewers and more summary. I welcome any feedback anyone has on this in how to put this together. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]