Baldur's Gate 3

[Oyster Sauce]

I'm also pretty convinced that you weren't supposed to complete both underdark and mountain pass in the same playthrough. First because Halsin clearly states it as that you should choose between one of these, not do both. Second because when you do both you come to act 2 overleveled and overgeared, shitting on all enemies until you reach the final fights of the act.

The game would have been significantly more challenging if you had to choose and it would be a quite interesting decision to have between playthroughs.

Damn, when I click on transition point into mountains, game said that if I'm go further, unfinished quests will be artificially finished and I turned back, but when I tried to get to the underdark, game doesn't show any warnings, like it is part of act 1, so I thought that this is the way it is intended to be. You actually can go mountains without problems?

You can enter and complete both zones, they each have a real point of no return that ends the act. Yes, it's stupid. Some unfinished quests require you to proceed to the next act and it's not clear which.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I'm also pretty convinced that you weren't supposed to complete both underdark and mountain pass in the same playthrough. First because Halsin clearly states it as that you should choose between one of these, not do both. Second because when you do both you come to act 2 overleveled and overgeared, shitting on all enemies until you reach the final fights of the act.

The game would have been significantly more challenging if you had to choose and it would be a quite interesting decision to have between playthroughs.

Damn, when I click on transition point into mountains, game said that if I'm go further, unfinished quests will be artificially finished and I turned back, but when I tried to get to the underdark, game doesn't show any warnings, like it is part of act 1, so I thought that this is the way it is intended to be. You actually can go mountains without problems?

You can enter and complete both zones, they each have a real point of no return that ends the act. Yes, it's stupid. Some unfinished quests require you to proceed to the next act and it's not clear which.

RPG of the year... I need a drink.

[Anon]

I'm also pretty convinced that you weren't supposed to complete both underdark and mountain pass in the same playthrough. First because Halsin clearly states it as that you should choose between one of these, not do both. Second because when you do both you come to act 2 overleveled and overgeared, shitting on all enemies until you reach the final fights of the act.

The game would have been significantly more challenging if you had to choose and it would be a quite interesting decision to have between playthroughs.

Damn, when I click on transition point into mountains, game said that if I'm go further, unfinished quests will be artificially finished and I turned back, but when I tried to get to the underdark, game doesn't show any warnings, like it is part of act 1, so I thought that this is the way it is intended to be. You actually can go mountains without problems?

Yes, exactly this.

This warning is because if you don't save the grove before going to mountain pass, it'll get sealed and the tieflings die.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's a good example of the result of dev shakeup mid-development imo. Original devs were unafraid of allowing players to completely miss content, later areas have much more handholding design.
Just like the Minthara patch.

[Anon]

It's a good example of the result of dev shakeup mid-development imo. Original devs were unafraid of allowing players to completely miss content, later areas have much more handholding design.
Just like the Minthara patch.

Yes they originally wanted to give the game relevant replaying value by enforcing these decisions and unique paths. Then later they decided to cater to the retards that want to see 100% of the content in a single playthrough and the sensitive faggots who can't exterminate a stupid grove at least once.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's a good example of the result of dev shakeup mid-development imo. Original devs were unafraid of allowing players to completely miss content, later areas have much more handholding design.
Just like the Minthara patch.

Yes they originally wanted to give the game relevant replaying value by enforcing these decisions and unique paths. Then later they decided to cater to the retards that want to see 100% of the content in a single playthrough.

I don't necessarily think it's about replayability tbh.
Witcher 2 was designed to be replayable, and I rather hated it, plus it handholds. BG3 felt like it was (originally) designed to be more of having your own unique version of the adventure rather than people replaying it to see every possible outcome.

[Anon]

It's a good example of the result of dev shakeup mid-development imo. Original devs were unafraid of allowing players to completely miss content, later areas have much more handholding design.
Just like the Minthara patch.

Yes they originally wanted to give the game relevant replaying value by enforcing these decisions and unique paths. Then later they decided to cater to the retards that want to see 100% of the content in a single playthrough.

I don't necessarily think it's about replayability tbh.
Witcher 2 was designed to be replayable, and I rather hated it, plus it handholds. BG3 felt like it was (originally) designed to be more of having your own unique version of the adventure rather than people replaying it to see every possible outcome.

Doesn't one thing imply the other though? If you make each playthrough unique you're giving the game replayability. That's what makes a game replayable to me at least.

Seeing every possible outcome in this game is basically impossible unless you're willing to replay some tens of times. But as it is now you can see 100% of the relevant content in a single playthrough, which I loathe.

[rusty_shackleford]

Doesn't one thing imply the other though?

Not quite. Pulling from my example again, Witcher 2 handholds but is branching nonlinear heavily encouraging replability. Baldur's Gate 3 is also nonlinear, but not in a branching way.
As pictures often explain concepts much better than words,

Witcher 2:

BG3:


One of these lends itself much more naturally to replayability, the other is suited towards creating a unique narrative for the player.
Another good example of the latter is FNV. Beth games get close, but they're too worried about the player missing content so it's more like every node is connected with every other node.

[Anon]

Doesn't one thing imply the other though?

Not quite. Pulling from my example again, Witcher 2 handholds but is branching nonlinear heavily encouraging replability. Baldur's Gate 3 is also nonlinear, but not in a branching way.
As pictures often explain concepts much better than words,

Witcher 2:

BG3:


One of these lends itself much more naturally to replayability, the other is suited towards creating a unique narrative for the player.

That is correct now but at launch you had at least 2 critical paths in BG3, one where you saved the grove and allowed to see you most things but not everything, and another where you'd exterminate the grove and forsake most content but was the only way of having a Minthara playthrough. Now this branching still exists but exterminating the grove gives you absolutely nothing unique at the cost of forsaking a good portion of content of the game, aka it's retarded design content only serving to bait unsuspecting noobs into having a miserable and useless playthrough now.

Plus if our supposition is correct you also were supposed to choose between doing Underdark or Mountain Pass, so that'd be another critical path that would force you to replay to see both contents.

So you were forced to at least replay the game once, and that was clearly the intended design.

Now it's surely more according to your proposed design though.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

It's a good example of the result of dev shakeup mid-development imo. Original devs were unafraid of allowing players to completely miss content, later areas have much more handholding design.
Just like the Minthara patch.

Yes they originally wanted to give the game relevant replaying value by enforcing these decisions and unique paths. Then later they decided to cater to the retards that want to see 100% of the content in a single playthrough and the sensitive faggots who can't exterminate a stupid grove at least once.

This is stupid, you can go to underdark and grove "will wait" until you make a desigion what to do with it, but going to the mountain not. I just realised this. RPG of the year...

[rusty_shackleford]

I have no way to confirm this but I suspect they intended for a lot more of the game to be based upon time passing just due to how prevalent it is at the start of act 1. It's probable they ditched this because it's really hard to do, or a lot of casual gamers hate restrictions.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I have no way to confirm this but I suspect they intended for a lot more of the game to be based upon time passing just due to how prevalent it is at the start of act 1. It's probable they ditched this because it's really hard to do, or a lot of casual gamers hate restrictions.

Depends on quest and event, to be honest.

[rusty_shackleford]

I have no way to confirm this but I suspect they intended for a lot more of the game to be based upon time passing just due to how prevalent it is at the start of act 1. It's probable they ditched this because it's really hard to do, or a lot of casual gamers hate restrictions.

Depends on quest and event, to be honest.

When you keep adding things that are based on time, either static or a set amount after an action, you start creating a lot of dependent states that can be very hard to get right and/or debug. The alternative is to make them all independent, which probably doesn't feel too good either.
This is probably why the two characters in the grove related to time sensitive events aren't, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned much at all. It seems neither of them appear again(?), wiki could be wrong tho
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Nadira
This one seems to show up again, but doesn't seem to interact at all
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Mirkon

Of course, BG3/Larian does have full control over time passing — it only passes when you rest. So that makes it a bit easier.

[rusty_shackleford]

Here's a list of time sensitive content and you can see it's heavily, heavily slanted towards not just act 1 but the start of act 1:
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Time_sensitive_activities

It's a shame, because time sensitivity means you can't just rest spam and have to think carefully about resource usage.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Here's a list of time sensitive content and you can see it's heavily, heavily slanted towards not just act 1 but the start of act 1:
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Time_sensitive_activities

It's a shame, because time sensitivity means you can't just rest spam and have to think carefully about resource usage.

So, is this shit time sensitive or not?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Nadira

This event kinda stupid, for example, you can just not trigger it, go recruit Karlah, i think you even can make a long rest, go back and trigger it and get approval rating, bugbear will just wait.

[Cipher]

I have no way to confirm this but I suspect they intended for a lot more of the game to be based upon time passing just due to how prevalent it is at the start of act 1. It's probable they ditched this because it's really hard to do, or a lot of casual gamers hate restrictions.

Depends on quest and event, to be honest.

When you keep adding things that are based on time, either static or a set amount after an action, you start creating a lot of dependent states that can be very hard to get right and/or debug. The alternative is to make them all independent, which probably doesn't feel too good either.
This is probably why the two characters in the grove related to time sensitive events aren't, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned much at all. It seems neither of them appear again(?), wiki could be wrong tho
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Nadira
This one seems to show up again, but doesn't seem to interact at all
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Mirkon

Of course, BG3/Larian does have full control over time passing — it only passes when you rest. So that makes it a bit easier.

Or, they could just have created a day and night cycle, like the original BG games.

Then, you only need a "before [this] amount of ingame time". BG 1 has this with Minsk quest about searching for Dynaheir and the same with Kivan IIRC.


But having a day and night cycle is too much for Larian's games, for whatever reason.

BG1 also had a fatigue system, so there was a reason to camp or you could push through. The quest time limits weren't used nearly enough, but the game had day and night, weather changes and places actually closing shop in the night.

[Oldtimer]

Depends on quest and event, to be honest.

When you keep adding things that are based on time, either static or a set amount after an action, you start creating a lot of dependent states that can be very hard to get right and/or debug. The alternative is to make them all independent, which probably doesn't feel too good either.
This is probably why the two characters in the grove related to time sensitive events aren't, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned much at all. It seems neither of them appear again(?), wiki could be wrong tho
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Nadira
This one seems to show up again, but doesn't seem to interact at all
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Mirkon

Of course, BG3/Larian does have full control over time passing — it only passes when you rest. So that makes it a bit easier.

Or, they could just have created a day and night cycle, like the original BG games.

Then, you only need a "before [this] amount of ingame time". BG 1 has this with Minsk quest about searching for Dynaheir and the same with Kivan IIRC.


But having a day and night cycle is too much for Larian's games, for whatever reason.

BG1 also had a fatigue system, so there was a reason to camp or you could push through. The quest time limits weren't used nearly enough, but the game had day and night, weather changes and places actually closing shop in the night.

And, certain events could only occur during nighttime, as a meeting with Bodhi in BG2 for example.

So yes, using an actual day/night cycle would definitely have added another layer to BG3, but camping could still have been valid, no matter which time at day it would be - nothing says you have to make camp at 6-8 PM; you could just as well do it a lot earlier for whatever reason, as long as you then break camp at say 6 AM.

[Anon]

It's a shame, because time sensitivity means you can't just rest spam and have to think carefully about resource usage.

This is also a great point, classes designed around short resting (warlock, fighter, monks etc) are kinda gimped due to long rest being so easy and free of punishment to do. All the areas that have some resting restriction always either offer some way of long resting inside, or let you simply leave to long rest.

[TKVNC]

It's a shame, because time sensitivity means you can't just rest spam and have to think carefully about resource usage.

This is also a great point, classes designed around short resting (warlock, fighter, monks etc) are kinda gimped due to long rest being so easy and free of punishment to do. All the areas that have some resting restriction always either offer some way of long resting inside, or let you simply leave to long rest.

I'd say it makes short-rest classes more overpowered anyway, since they don't have to ever worry about resources. Battle-Master Fighter comes to mind. You, if you want, never have to enter a fight without all your Superiority Die. It's comical, actually.

[Anon]

It's a shame, because time sensitivity means you can't just rest spam and have to think carefully about resource usage.

This is also a great point, classes designed around short resting (warlock, fighter, monks etc) are kinda gimped due to long rest being so easy and free of punishment to do. All the areas that have some resting restriction always either offer some way of long resting inside, or let you simply leave to long rest.

I'd say it makes short-rest classes more overpowered anyway, since they don't have to ever worry about resources. Battle-Master Fighter comes to mind. You, if you want, never have to enter a fight without all your Superiority Die. It's comical, actually.

Long-rest classes tend to be a bit more overtuned in their powers because it's supposed to be balanced around them having less benefits from short resting. In a system where you wouldn't be able to long rest freely, short-rest classes would have a notorious advantage by being able to easily outlast the long-rest classes in extenuous adventures. But since you can basically long-rest after each battle out of any consequences if you want to, long-resting classes get some significant advantage.

[TKVNC]

Long-rest classes tend to be a bit more overtuned in their powers because it's supposed to be balanced around them having less benefits from short resting. In a system where you wouldn't be able to long rest freely, short-rest classes would have a notorious advantage by being able to easily outlast the long-rest classes in extenuous adventures. But since you can basically long-rest after each battle out of any consequences if you want to, long-resting classes get some significant advantage.

Chain disarming someone, only to have them waste their action reequipping the weapon makes the game hilariously stupid though.

[Anon]

Long-rest classes tend to be a bit more overtuned in their powers because it's supposed to be balanced around them having less benefits from short resting. In a system where you wouldn't be able to long rest freely, short-rest classes would have a notorious advantage by being able to easily outlast the long-rest classes in extenuous adventures. But since you can basically long-rest after each battle out of any consequences if you want to, long-resting classes get some significant advantage.

Chain disarming someone, only to have them waste their action reequipping the weapon makes the game hilariously stupid though.

Yes all classes are still pretty strong and feel fun to play, I'm never gonna deny that.

But for example, nobody recommends playing a full warlock, since wizards and sorcerers easily outclass them. Wouldn't be the case if they couldn't freely spam their spells and long-rest whenever they wanted to.

Full fighters are powerful, but a paladin/bard spamming smites is more, and again it's because they can rest whenever they want to, to restore their smites.

Monks are strong but they normally have to rely on shenanigans for that (abusing tavern brawler mechanics).

Etc.

[wndrbr]

https://www.bafta.org/games/awards/2024 ... ns-winners

Bear Gay 3 is British Academy's GOTY.

[fkirenicus]

I have no way to confirm this but I suspect they intended for a lot more of the game to be based upon time passing just due to how prevalent it is at the start of act 1. It's probable they ditched this because it's really hard to do, or a lot of casual gamers hate restrictions.

Depends on quest and event, to be honest.

When you keep adding things that are based on time, either static or a set amount after an action, you start creating a lot of dependent states that can be very hard to get right and/or debug. The alternative is to make them all independent, which probably doesn't feel too good either.
This is probably why the two characters in the grove related to time sensitive events aren't, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned much at all. It seems neither of them appear again(?), wiki could be wrong tho
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Nadira
This one seems to show up again, but doesn't seem to interact at all
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Mirkon

Of course, BG3/Larian does have full control over time passing — it only passes when you rest. So that makes it a bit easier.

This is the one thing the wife finds really disappointing with BG3 - the lack of time actually passing during day and night. The only time it is night is in camp and in (seemingly) the entire Shadow-Cursed Lands; at all other times it is day. Takes away the immersion for both of us, there is no denying...
Larian could at least have done it the DA2 way - one set of maps for daytime, another set of maps for nighttime. Or, as others have suggested, implemented a system similar to what BioWare managed to do about 25 years ago, and which still works.... :-P
Also, have I mentioned chapter 3 is awful?

[Anon]

https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate- ... ce-cloning

Amelia Tyler, who was nominated for best performance for her portrayal of the Baldur's Gate 3 narrator, spoke candidly to Eurogamer about a particularly harrowing stream.

"People have been recreating my voice off the back of this game in AI without my permission, and several other actors from the game," she said. "Just so everyone is aware, none of us have given permission for that to ever happen. Unless I have signed something saying you're allowed to do that, that is stealing not just my job but my identity.

[BobT]

https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate- ... ce-cloning

Amelia Tyler, who was nominated for best performance for her portrayal of the Baldur's Gate 3 narrator, spoke candidly to Eurogamer about a particularly harrowing stream.

"People have been recreating my voice off the back of this game in AI without my permission, and several other actors from the game," she said. "Just so everyone is aware, none of us have given permission for that to ever happen. Unless I have signed something saying you're allowed to do that, that is stealing not just my job but my identity.

She complained at people re-creating someone ELSE'S voice too, where HER voice was not even the one in the model! Stupid anti-AI bint.

[Anon]

https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate- ... ce-cloning

Amelia Tyler, who was nominated for best performance for her portrayal of the Baldur's Gate 3 narrator, spoke candidly to Eurogamer about a particularly harrowing stream.

"People have been recreating my voice off the back of this game in AI without my permission, and several other actors from the game," she said. "Just so everyone is aware, none of us have given permission for that to ever happen. Unless I have signed something saying you're allowed to do that, that is stealing not just my job but my identity.

She complained at people re-creating someone ELSE'S voice too, where HER voice was not even the one in the model! Stupid anti-AI bint.

Worth remembering that this is the retard who orders takedown of any mods switching her narrator voice in BG3

[fkirenicus]

There have been so many bad experiences in chapter 3 now, that I am beginning to wonder if I will ever be able to finish the game. Utterly cringe-worthy dialogs, 2024 SF/NY looking characters and background dialogs... Ah well. If I do finish it, I am quite certain I won't play it again - at least not beyond chapter 2. Let Gale blow Moonrise Towers and us all to smithereens; rather that than chapter 3...

[Oyster Sauce]

There have been so many bad experiences in chapter 3 now, that I am beginning to wonder if I will ever be able to finish the game. Utterly cringe-worthy dialogs, 2024 SF/NY looking characters and background dialogs... Ah well. If I do finish it, I am quite certain I won't play it again - at least not beyond chapter 2. Let Gale blow Moonrise Towers and us all to smithereens; rather that than chapter 3...

You're probably max level, right? Go smash the final boss if you're not having fun.