Support NeoGAF

[CrustyBritches]

I should be all wrapped up on Final Fantasy XVI and ready to move on to BGIII by release.

 

[Gorgon]

This is my thinking also, Dark Urge first run, 2nd run once DLC/Expansions are out with probably Wyll or Gale story.

3rd run through in 2026, the future.

I think they said there would be no DLC/expansions? Or maybe they're just being sneaky and say that they didn't have any planned DLC at launch.

 

[PectacularOz]

I think they said there would be no DLC/expansions? Or maybe they're just being sneaky and say that they didn't have any planned DLC at launch.

I fully expect a story creation tool well aftee launch. I only hope its extended to consoles. Would be amazing for online D&D campaigns.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Play testers whining about rest restrictions and making the feature basically go away is heart-breaking.

Focus testing keeps confirming itself an absolute scourge of good game design.

Is this refering to the fact there is no risk of monster spawning if you rest too often or is it some other change i'm not aware of?

 

[Sentenza]

Is this refering to the fact there is no risk of monster spawning if you rest too often or is it some other change i'm not aware of?

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

Because, you know, focus testers (so not even EA players, that never had a chance to try this feature and comment on it) thought it was "annoying" being limited with resting... when the entire fucking D&D system is basically built around the idea that you have to manage limited resources through multiple situations and you aren't supposed to be able to rest "as much as you want, wherever you want".
They "hated" being forced to backtrack out of a dungeon to do that.
Except the system isn't even in place to force you to backtrack, you fucking morons. it's there to discourage you from doing it unless strictly necessary.

But this is game design today: listening to the whiners that want the cheats basically integrated in the native game UI for the sake of convenience.

 

[EviLore]

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

Because, you know, focus testers (so not even EA players, that never had a chance to try this feature and comment on it) thought it was "annoying" being limited with resting... when the entire fucking D&D system is basically built around the idea that you have to manage limited resources through multiple situations and you aren't supposed to be able to rest "as much as you want, wherever you want".

But this is game design today: listening to the whiners that want the cheats basically integrated in the native game UI for the sake of convenience.

They need to add a Hardcore/Core option then.

 

[Gorgon]

I fully expect a story creation tool well aftee launch. I only hope its extended to consoles. Would be amazing for online D&D campaigns.

That and the associated mod support on consoles like Bethesda does. But I'm not holding my breath. I replayed Skyrim and FO4 on the Xbox solely because they had mod support, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

(Mod support on the PS is crap compared to Xbox, though, because of the "no external asset" limitation, meaning that no new assets can be added to a game, unlike on Xbox. But I'm going back to PC gaming next gen just because I miss the fucking mods. Otherwise I'd just keep a PS around and maybe an Xbox.)

 

[Gorgon]

They need to add a Hardcore/Core option then.

Pretty much this. As long as the options are there, no problem. No one forces you one way or the other. Everybody wins.

 

[Sentenza]

Pretty much this. As long as the options are there, no problem. No one forces you one way or the other. Everybody wins.

Well, except these options aren't there now, so no, we aren't fucking winning.

And it's more than a bit weird that I'll have to rely on mods to have an actual implementation of the rules (probably even flawed because of some modding tool limitation) while people who beg for what are basically natively-integrated cheats (like full unlimited respect for everyone, including the compation's starting class) will get what they were asking for.

 

[Gorgon]

Well, except these options aren't there now, so no, we aren't fucking winning.

And it's more than a bit weird that I'll have to rely on mods to have an actual implementation of the rules (probably even flawed because of some modding tool limitation) while people who beg for what are basically natively-integrated cheats (like full unlimited respect for everyone, including the compation's starting class) will get what they were asking for.

Hum, that's a problem then, and I agree with you. The basic design of a game should not change to accomodate that.

Regarding natively-integrated cheats, I actually think that's a good thing because,

1) It's basically what modders will do anyway, and

2) It cost next to nothing in dev time and implementation, and

3) It's great for replayability of many games when all you want is to go back for a second run and fuck around.

For example, I think TaleWorlds Entertainment said in a post that they're going to implement a cheat system in the console versions of Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Whats with this cringe OT name?

Seems about right, all in good humor etc?

I think they said there would be no DLC/expansions? Or maybe they're just being sneaky and say that they didn't have any planned DLC at launch.

They have said that they aren't planning on any, but a ToB type of expansion at some stage I'm sure would be welcomed by all. There'll also be modded in quests and such, but I'm not too sure how much modders can tutu with it.

 

[Gorgon]

They have said that they aren't planning on any, but a ToB type of expansion at some stage I'm sure would be welcomed by all. There'll also be modded in quests and such, but I'm not too sure how much modders can tutu with it.

Well, mods are a given, so I'm not counting those in.

I hope you're right, I don't want to have to wait years for the next game (whatever that is). A meaty expansion or two would be very welcome.


Two questions, by the way:

1) All romanceable NPCs are romanceable no matter what gender the PC is, right?

2) Do we know what the D&D license entails, like Larian got the license for BG3 specifically, or for a certain amount of time, or what?

 

[Guilty_AI]

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

Because, you know, focus testers (so not even EA players, that never had a chance to try this feature and comment on it) thought it was "annoying" being limited with resting... when the entire fucking D&D system is basically built around the idea that you have to manage limited resources through multiple situations and you aren't supposed to be able to rest "as much as you want, wherever you want".
They "hated" being forced to backtrack out of a dungeon to do that.
Except the system isn't even in place to force you to backtrack, you fucking morons. it's there to discourage you from doing it unless strictly necessary.

But this is game design today: listening to the whiners that want the cheats basically integrated in the native game UI for the sake of convenience.

I think that ties in to other core changes to the game mechanics (at least compared to BG1&2, not sure the exactitudes of DnD rules here).

BG3, at least that i know of, has no random enemy encounters. It would make sense to stop you from teleporting back to camp if there was a risk of encountering enemies on the way back. But without that, it would indeed be just a pointless annoyance to force the player to walk all the way.

I think this also ties in with the fact they wanted camp to be on a fixed spot, rather than something you can set up anywhere. They probably made it that way because they wanted it to be a place where you'd have interactions with your party members and other story developments. I imagine developing the cutscenes and other interactions would be much harder to do if you could just lay down (almost) anywhere like in the previous games.

I personally don't mind those changes, i like the idea of camp being this place where you can deepen bonds with other party members, rather than just some resource management mechanic. And i think it was all done for that sake.

 

[Fuz]

And it's more than a bit weird that I'll have to rely on mods to have an actual implementation of the rules

Can't you just... not use rest so freely?

(Actual question, not sarcasm)

 

[Guilty_AI]

Can't you just... not use rest so freely?

(Actual question, not sarcasm)

Actually, something want to know.

I know that to long rest you need to spend some resources, however, how 'easy' it is to obtain the necessary amount? Technically that is the main thing stopping the player from spamming long rests, so if obtaining the necessary amount of resources is a trivial thing i could see how this would be an issue.

 

[Gorgon]

I think that ties in to other core changes to the game mechanics (at least compared to BG1&2, not sure the exactitudes of DnD rules here).

BG3, at least that i know of, has no random enemy encounters. It would make sense to stop you from teleporting back to camp if there was a risk of encountering enemies on the way back. But without that, it would indeed be just a pointless annoyance to force the player to walk all the way.

I think this also ties in with the fact they wanted camp to be on a fixed spot, rather than something you can set up anywhere. They probably made it that way because they wanted it to be a place where you'd have interactions with your party members and other story developments. I imagine developing the cutscenes and other interactions would be much harder to do if you could just lay down (almost) anywhere like in the previous games.

I personally don't mind those changes, i like the idea of camp being this place where you can deepen bonds with other party members, rather than just some resource management mechanic. And i think it was all done for that sake.

If there's no random enemy encounters inside and outside dungeons then yes, it would seem like a pointless trek. Understandable in that case. On the other hand, if the point is to discourage resting on demand, then making it boring for the player would serve the same purpose, random encounters or not.

Not sure about this. Guess I'll have to play the game and see.

 

[MagiusNecros]

Can't you just... not use rest so freely?

(Actual question, not sarcasm)

It's pretty much an insult to use the DnD 5e rules and alter a big component on what makes 5th edition, 5th edition.

In that you get limited short rests(2 to be precise) and 1 long rest every 24 hour period. But now you can essentially cheat and bypass the restriction entirely.

And IMO the teleport to camp should be a high level teleport spell you should sacrifice a spell slot for if it's going to be that broken.

And I think overall it just gives you incentive to be a bad player instead of strategizing properly.

It boils down to the option is there when it shouldn't be...and if Larian needs to have an Easy mode then an actual DnD 5e mode should be an option as well.

But that's why the game in my eyes is Divinity Original Sin 2 but with a DnD coat of paint. It's a double edged sword really. It's a mix between Divinity, DnD, and maybe Baldur's Gate but isn't really any of these at the same time.

But hey for all we know Larian could just be doing DnD homebrew 5e. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Guilty_AI]

If there's no random enemy encounters inside and outside dungeons then yes, it would seem like a pointless trek. Understandable in that case. On the other hand, if the point is to discourage resting on demand, then making it boring for the player would serve the same purpose, random encounters or not.

Not sure about this. Guess I'll have to play the game and see.

Their way of discouraging long resting too much is by making the act consume food resources. If you don't have enough you can only partial rest which isn't as effective.

From what i've been reading online the current resource cost isn't much (though i'm unsure on that point), however it seems according to Larian, they're making so at later points in the game, with higher leveled characters, that cost will increase.

 

[Madonis]

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

For the record, Larian has explicitly mentioned in today's interview that there will still be a few "danger zones" where you'll be prevented from going to your camp, when it makes narrative sense.

In other words: they tried to experiment with a much stricter implementation and the game testers really didn't like it, so now that restriction has been scaled back. Not completely removed.

Personally speaking, I don't think being "closer" to the D&D 5E rules as literally written is some sort of gold standard. Video games like this one are adapting the rules, not simply copying and pasting them.

 

[Sentenza]

Personally speaking I think you are completely wrong, since in three years of EA I've never seen any Larian designer deviating from the core rules AND making a change for the better. Even when they buffed notoriously weak classes they went for the most hamfisted solution.

That aside, resting restrictions aren't even a matter of adherence to P&P since that's not even something needed there (as the DM is the ultimate judge of where you can or cannot rest).
Resting restrictions are something needed specifically in videogames adaptations.

And for the record the argument "I can just backtrack 15 minutes and rest anyway so it's just annoying" is a terrible one, too. Because the point is PRECISELY that the "annoyance" is supposed to be your deterrent to abuse the system unless absolutely forced by an extreme need.
When you remove that annoyance you get something that is just up to your will to not abuse without restrictions. Which makes for some fucking Awful design, mechanically speaking.

 

[Madonis]

Personally speaking I think you are completely wrong, since in three years of EA I've never seen any Larian designer deviating from the core rules AND making a change for the better. Even when they buffed notoriously weak classes they went for the most hamfisted solution.

That aside, resting restrictions aren't even a matter of adherence to P&P since that's not even something needed there (as the DM is the ultimate judge of where you can or cannot rest).
Resting restrictions are something needed specifically in videogames adaptations.

And for the record the argument "I can just backtrack 15 minutes and rest anyway so it's just annoying" is a terrible one, too. Because the point is PRECISELY that the "annoyance" is supposed to be your deterrent to abuse the system unless absolutely forced by an extreme need.
When you remove that annoyance you get something that is just up to your will to not abuse without restrictions. Which makes for some fucking Awful design, mechanically speaking.

I understand your argument on a conceptual level. It's very hard to judge anything exclusively based on the EA version since neither of us can debate the actual implementation in the final game.

 

[Guilty_AI]

And for the record the argument "I can just backtrack 15 minutes and rest anyway so it's just annoying" is a terrible one, too. Because the point is PRECISELY that the "annoyance" is supposed to be your deterrent to abuse the system unless absolutely forced by an extreme need.
When you remove that annoyance you get something that is just up to your will to not abuse without restrictions. Which makes for some fucking Awful design, mechanically speaking.

Isn't the restriction the comsumption of food resources? Not only you lose items to use during battle you're also limited by the amount you have.

 

[bender]

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

Because, you know, focus testers (so not even EA players, that never had a chance to try this feature and comment on it) thought it was "annoying" being limited with resting... when the entire fucking D&D system is basically built around the idea that you have to manage limited resources through multiple situations and you aren't supposed to be able to rest "as much as you want, wherever you want".
They "hated" being forced to backtrack out of a dungeon to do that.
Except the system isn't even in place to force you to backtrack, you fucking morons. it's there to discourage you from doing it unless strictly necessary.

But this is game design today: listening to the whiners that want the cheats basically integrated in the native game UI for the sake of convenience.

You just flattened my tires.

 

[Sentenza]

Isn't the restriction the comsumption of food resources? Not only you lose items to use during battle you're also limited by the amount you have.

Food mechanics in this game are a fucking joke, so no it isn't.
You find so much food in Act 1 alone that it could last you for 80 long rests or so. That's probably going to be enough for the entire game, and that's assuming the game is twice as big as I'm imagining it.

Also,, its weight is inconsequential AND you can teleport excess food to your camp with a right click at any time if carrying capacity ever comes close to feel tight.
So no, that definitely cannot be the solution.

 

[Sentenza]

Can't you just... not use rest so freely?

(Actual question, not sarcasm)

What are you asking exactly?
If I could just exercise self-restriction because the game designer is being too lenient?
Yes, I can. Does it sound like a good solution to you?

Case in point... this is a post from a guy on the Larian forum that summarized perfectly well why the whole "If you don't like, don't use it" is one of the worst arguments ever used every time it's applied to game design rather than your personal collection of sex toys:

grysqrl wrote:

- It is the job of the designer and/or developer to create a set of rules and then pose a problem to the playtester.
- It is the job of the playtester to try anything and everything allowed within those rules to try to solve the problem and then report on what happened. This helps the designer to understand what is working well and what isn't.
- "I found this thing that you can do (or are incentivized to do, because it's good at solving the problem) and it feels bad" is useful feedback. A good designer should be trying to avoid situations that make their players feel bad.
- Telling people that their feelings are invalid because they can choose to not do that thing isn't helpful. They're doing what they're supposed to be doing and giving feedback on it.


My feelings with regards to exploits:

Combats in this game (from what I've seen) are pretty simple - if you want to progress in the game, you have to win the fight. There is no notion of failing forward; if you lose the fight, you die and have to load an old save. Therefore, winning the fight is paramount and it is expected to do anything that you can within the rules to kill your enemies. If I find a tactic like this that works, but feels like cheating, it makes me think less of the game. It isn't fun to be torn between progressing the story and feeling like you are exploiting an oversight in the rules.

If winning at any cost weren't ingrained into the structure of the game, it would feel less necessary to rely on exploits. But stumbling on a tactic that works, even if it feels bad, usually means that I'm not searching for better tactics to use - a local maximum is often good enough. That's not fun. It's easy to say "just don't use that exploit," but I want to feel like I'm struggling to solve the problem, not holding back because an obvious answer feels like cheating.


My feelings on a larger, related issue:

Like many of the other exploits that have been pointed out in the past (e.g. bonus action projectile shove, hide shenanigans, attack advantage from height, etc.), this is an exploit that (nearly) every character can take advantage of. Some of the most powerful things in the game have nothing to do with the choices you've made about your character. Class features are severely diminished in the face of a toolbox of exploits that anyone can use. I want my character to feel powerful. I want to feel like the choices that I've made about how my character grows are important. But time and again it seems like my character is overshadowed by what pieces of fancy gear they have collected and how good I am at flogging the same loopholes in the rules over and over again. It feels really bad and makes me not want to play the game. I really don't care about how pretty the graphics are or how many voiceover options I can choose from if the gameplay feels bad.

 

[Last Hearth]

Personally speaking I think you are completely wrong, since in three years of EA I've never seen any Larian designer deviating from the core rules AND making a change for the better. Even when they buffed notoriously weak classes they went for the most hamfisted solution.

That aside, resting restrictions aren't even a matter of adherence to P&P since that's not even something needed there (as the DM is the ultimate judge of where you can or cannot rest).
Resting restrictions are something needed specifically in videogames adaptations.

And for the record the argument "I can just backtrack 15 minutes and rest anyway so it's just annoying" is a terrible one, too. Because the point is PRECISELY that the "annoyance" is supposed to be your deterrent to abuse the system unless absolutely forced by an extreme need.
When you remove that annoyance you get something that is just up to your will to not abuse without restrictions. Which makes for some fucking Awful design, mechanically speaking.

You can just not abuse it, when you play. Why does it bother you if other people don’t like this “mechanic”.

 

[Sentenza]

You can just not abuse it, when you play. Why does it bother you if other people don’t like this “mechanic”.

I just explained precisely WHY in the reply precedent to your post, the one you conveniently ignored.

TL,DR: because "You can just not do it" is a retarded argument.

P.S. And it doesn't become any smarter every single time is repeated.

 

[Last Hearth]

I just explained precisely WHY in the reply precedent to your post, the one you conveniently ignored.

TL,DR: because "You can just not do it" is a retarded argument.

P.S. And it doesn't become any smarter every single time is repeated.

The point is, what constitutes “abuse” in a single player crpg is a subjective matter.
Based on player feedback, the majority of player don’t consider it abuse. And Larian choose to listen to them and provide the experience that they want.

To me, it seems a minor issue. But if it that important to you, you can always police yourself. If you’re unwilling or unable to, then maybe it’s not actually the experience you say you want.

 

[Draugoth]

Villains added to the thread

Can't wait. I'm just trying to decide if I should jump in and play on steam deck or hold out for the PS5 version.

You get the Deluxe Edition for Free on PC if you get the game while on Early Access

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Well, mods are a given, so I'm not counting those in.

I hope you're right, I don't want to have to wait years for the next game (whatever that is). A meaty expansion or two would be very welcome.


Two questions, by the way:

1) All romanceable NPCs are romanceable no matter what gender the PC is, right?

2) Do we know what the D&D license entails, like Larian got the license for BG3 specifically, or for a certain amount of time, or what?

I seem to recall something about some of the romance options being gender specific, some not, could be wrong.

Larian tried for years to get the licence - I'm so stoked they stuck to their guns and got it in the end, match made in heaven

 

[Guilty_AI]

You can just not abuse it, when you play. Why does it bother you if other people don’t like this “mechanic”.

I do think this isn't a good justification to implement mechanics that break the game, however i just don't think this is the case here. For me it just looks like Larian juggling the DnD mechanics, which weren't designed with the constraints of videogames in mind, in order to make it work in one without having everything feel like a chore or to the detriment of other parts of the game.

Things like treking back to camp, having to wait a set timer to rest, having to deal with random enemy encounters that either repeat themselves or aren't designed to be interesting to engage in... just think for a moment, would any of these things even be fun? Would they be anything other than an annoyance thrown there for the sake of filling some balancing hole? They're in the rulebook because having a DM directing everything can surely improve these aspects of the experience with some creativity. But there's no DM here, everything has to be automatized as its just a computer game.

I know these differences can make the more purist players angry, but keep in mind balancing a game through annoyance is not - and never will be - good game design. Rules that work in a tabletop campaign will not necessarely translate well into a videogame format. Personally i think they did a good job with what they had in hand.

 

[Gorgon]

I seem to recall something about some of the romance options being gender specific, some not, could be wrong.

Larian tried for years to get the licence - I'm so stoked they stuck to their guns and got it in the end, match made in heaven

I should have just googled: they're not gender specific. Huff.

 

[Party McHardy]

I feel for those that don’t get, and thus cannot find mirth in the thread title.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I should have just googled: they're not gender specific. Huff.

Which reminds me, what are the chances that a video of shadowheart about to be fucked by a bear will cause outrage online among certain purple colored communities?

 

[Gorgon]

Which reminds me, what are the chances that a video of shadowheart about to be fucked by a bear will cause outrage online among certain purple colored communities?

Probably similar to the one of a (dead) elf under the same circumstances.

 

[Madonis]

I do think this isn't a good justification to implement mechanics that break the game, however i just don't think this is the case here. For me it just looks like Larian juggling the DnD mechanics, which weren't designed with the constraints of videogames in mind, in order to make it work in one without having everything feel like a chore or to the detriment of other parts of the game.

Things like treking back to camp, having to wait a set timer to rest, having to deal with random enemy encounters that either repeat themselves or aren't designed to be interesting to engage in... just think for a moment, would any of these things even be fun? Would they be anything other than an annoyance thrown there for the sake of filling some balancing hole? They're in the rulebook because having a DM directing everything can surely improve these aspects of the experience with some creativity. But there's no DM here, everything has to be automatized as its just a computer game.

I know these differences can make the more purist players angry, but keep in mind balancing a game through annoyance is not - and never will be - good game design. Rules that work in a tabletop campaign will not necessarely translate well into a videogame format. Personally i think they did a good job with what they had in hand.

I am quite sure Larian will tweak certain mechanics over time with patches if something isn't working within intended parameters, but they likely won't change everything. Sometimes, part of the fun of gaming comes from the possibility of allowing players to discover how you can, well, game the system. Hell, there are classic RPG titles lacking balance due to known exploits, cheats or other tricks and they're still held in fairly high regard.

Furthermore...there's at least two kinds of exploits: those that make everything trivial, which is indeed a big problem, or those that can make certain situations easier (compared to not using them), but may still require you to deal with other factors or won't apply to every scenario. In other words, they're not necessarily an "insta-win" button across the board.

Considering it has been stated that Act 2 does have more challenging combat encounters than the currently available content in Early Access, I wouldn't take too much for granted about this.

 

[Silver Wattle]

I feel for those that don’t get, and thus cannot find mirth in the thread title.

What about those that "get" the reference, but think it's a pathetic juvenile attempt at humour?

Very reddit-like humour at that.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What about those that "get" the reference, but think it's a pathetic juvenile attempt at humour?

Very reddit-like humour at that.

They'll just have to bear with it

 

[Draugoth]

What about those that "get" the reference, but think it's a pathetic juvenile attempt at humour?

Very reddit-like humour at that.

I have to admit my shitty sense of humor is unbearable sometimes.

 

[Meifu]

I just copped the pre release, should I just dive in normal? Don't need to worry about starting over on the official release?

 

[Guilty_AI]

I just copped the pre release, should I just dive in normal? Don't need to worry about starting over on the official release?

EA files wont carry over to the final build.

You can still dive in to familiarize yourself with the game however.

 

[Fools idol]

Seems like the least interesting class so far.. but even then very good

 

[Yoshichan]

Seems like the least interesting class so far.. but even then very good

Multiclass EVERY class with fighter just to level 2 for the double action turn, holyyyy

For attaining level 2 fighter on multiclassing, do I have to spend 2 levels (1, 2) or 1 level?!

 

[Fools idol]

Meant to post this earlier, Fextralife did a good video that breaks down the different spellcaster classes in the game

 

[PectacularOz]

That, and the fact that no matter where you are in the game, you'll be ALWAYS able to press a button, teleport to your camp, rest and be teleported back as long as you are not in combat.

Because, you know, focus testers (so not even EA players, that never had a chance to try this feature and comment on it) thought it was "annoying" being limited with resting... when the entire fucking D&D system is basically built around the idea that you have to manage limited resources through multiple situations and you aren't supposed to be able to rest "as much as you want, wherever you want".
They "hated" being forced to backtrack out of a dungeon to do that.
Except the system isn't even in place to force you to backtrack, you fucking morons. it's there to discourage you from doing it unless strictly necessary.

But this is game design today: listening to the whiners that want the cheats basically integrated in the native game UI for the sake of convenience.

Youre not "teleported to your camp", you set up a camp where you are.
In a forest? Your camp will be forested.
In a cave? Your camp is in a cave.
Etc.

 

[peish]

Yeah, thats not a good expectation to have. Especially since its basically impossible to see everything in one, two or even three runs. Not to mention you're gonna have your fair share of failures because of the way the game is designed.

The main idea in a crpg is really as the name says, role play. Create a character, impersonate it, make decisions based on what you think it'd do, and see where it takes you.

i failed to get shadow heart twice, once i burnt her to death, other i failed the dice roll and I cannot do anymore, not sure if that's an ea bug.

i remember why i stopped playing bg2, i kept reloading my saves

bg3 does starts off much different than bg2, more casual? more actiony? can't put a finger on it.

playing in dx11 HDR does bring more pop to the already bright colors, but that big fps dips when autosaving, and i am on a fast pcie4 ssd!

 

[Guilty_AI]

Youre not "teleported to your camp", you set up a camp where you are.
In a forest? Your camp will be forested.
In a cave? Your camp is in a cave.
Etc.

I think thats for short rest right? Or its the same for long rest also?

 

[Orbital2060]

Im a big Baldurs Gate fan, one of the all time classic roleplaying games. Esp the sequel and Throne of Baal.

Too many games already on my list for now but definately going in when time allows. Have to figure a way to play this and Starfield, and then Diablo for the time being, Armored Core in a month and then Forza. Thats all I got time for this year I think. Starfield and this maybe sometime closer to Christmas or New Years.

Its great when you have so many great RPGs coming out at the same time, but theyre all 100 + hours experiences. A new Diablo and Baldurs Gate at the same time. Quite different games, too. You cant really compare an ARPG to a CRPG.

 

[Fools idol]

I think thats for short rest right? Or its the same for long rest also?

you are limited to one short rest per long rest -

not sure if this video is still to date as its 2 years old but this is how it works

 

[Sentenza]

Youre not "teleported to your camp", you set up a camp where you are.
In a forest? Your camp will be forested.
In a cave? Your camp is in a cave.
Etc.

The post-rationalization is worthless.
Functionally it remains an INSTANCED camp separated from the rest of the gaming world, where you are under no risk of being interrupted or assaulted in any way.
Just because they reskin it (with sparse consistency, too) when you change area, the concept doesn't really change.