Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

that is literally nothing to be quite honest

yes the ability to tackle side quests in a given order gives you the illusion of leadership. but you yourself said that the game does not design for actual choices, and has no consequences in it.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post. I was basically agreeing with you.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Except you would lose the time mechanic of the game. Days are tracked. It's not BG where you can spam rest and the date is just a meaningless count. They wanted each day and each rest to progress an event timer. A short one.

Can't do that when some fake ass day/night cycle is running every hour or two.

This is a completely made-up problem.

Complex NPC schedules? Do you think BG had these? Only Athkatla and Trademeet had anything like this, and they just cleared the filler NPCs off the streets at night. There were no schedules where they each walked into their houses or anything.

BG1 and 2 admittedly didn't have much going for them in terms of scheduling, but they still had examples for the list I made in spades, plus a certain number of NPC just swapping in and out between day and night... Which while basic is still better than the... absolute nothing that is the alternative.

Again, this doesn't work. You could easily have world objects interfere with the scene in a cinematic game. Just being in a walled corridor could do this.

It's not really the hard problem you are making out to be, not to mention there would also be the second option/compromise of just making the potential "Camping sites" pre-established spots on the existing map, like Solasta does.
You'd have plenty of control of the geometry and characters interaction in it while not dealing with the disappointing and immersion-breaking abstract that is "Every time we rest, we teleport away in our pocket dimension".

I doubt the difference between mage armor lasting 8 hours and it lasting until the next day will matter to most people.

I will concede that this is a decent compromise and not one that bothers me that much.

When you're making a game, you have to choose what's more important.

I agree, and I consider a decent and even barely convincing day(night cycle far more important than some of the things they prioritized. Not to mention far less wasteful than, say, "Origin Characters".
What's worst: its implementation gets increasingly harder if you don't account for it from the get go, so they basically set themselves for failure with messed-up priorities.

 

[Delterius]

that is literally nothing to be quite honest

yes the ability to tackle side quests in a given order gives you the illusion of leadership. but you yourself said that the game does not design for actual choices, and has no consequences in it.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post. I was agreeing with you.

yeah i'm just kinda ranting

i like baldur's gate. i just replayed it and am half way through SoA's chapter 2. luv me fighter/mage. it's just incredible to me that people will talk about a version of that game that doesn't really exist. if one were to believe these circa 2006 takes BG1 wasn't a big grassland to explore at your leisure with a frank, okay-ish yet serviceable story. it's fallout planescape and knights of the chalice rolled into one.

but they still had examples for the list I made in spades

no they didn't

Not to mention far less wasteful than, say, "Origin Characters".

It's literally just companion quests which are instead tied to the main character if you want to.

And it's not comparable even. The amount of work to make npc schedules for a game the scale of BG3 is far beyond repurposing some work hours here and there. That is to say in a way that isn't half assed.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

no they didn't

Yes, They did.
Cosmetic variation, for one.
Or NPC swapping in and out according to the time of the day.
Or encounters with creatures that were available only at day/night-time (i.e. vampires in the cemetery or in the night streets).

And so on.

It's literally just companion quests which are instead tied to the main character if you want to.

No, it's not. It's their "companion quest" needing to be written by a double perspective. Both as a third part in your group and as if you were them.

And it's not comparable even. The amount of work to make npc schedules for a game the scale of BG3 is far beyond repurposing some work hours here and there. That is to say in a way that isn't half assed.

But NO ONE is asking for extensive and detailed NPC scheduling that changes between day and night. That's exactly the point being made here: that even without it would be a feature worth having anyway.

 

[Delterius]

no they didn't

Yes, They did.
Cosmetic variation, for one.
Or NPC swapping in and out according to the time of the day.
Or encounters with creatures that were available only at day/night-time (i.e. vampires in the cemetery or in the night streets).

And so on.

Frankly I think that standards for NPC schedules in a game like this are far higher than spawning two concubines in the Beregost during the night.

Yeah there is a handful of quests in the trilogy which make use of the 'you must be here at night' gimmick. There's stealing for Edwin, there's the thief quests in BG1, there's meeting Bodhi, and so on. I like those. But I'll take a deepening of the RPG mechanics and Reactivity over 'Cosmetic Variation' any day of the week. Cosmetic Variation which, by the way, was not nearly as deep as you remember. If they ever implemented npc schedules, I'd hope that'd be in addition and not detriment to the core of the experience.

 

[Cross]

Thieving bastards like me?

This is a valid point. I will admit thief characters lost out here. Though they lost out on cosmetics. There wasn't much of a nay/night cycle for any NPC.

Thief quests may have been cooler at night, but there were very few of them, and most of them could have been done during the day just as well.

I think the main exceptions to that were that one Talos priest that slept during the night in BG2, and one or two of the thieves guild quests in BG1.

3 quests vs hours spent on fiddling with some rest system and breaking the plot where each day supposedly progresses your transformation in one way or another.

The effect of a day/night cycle doesn't have to be limited to specific quests, it can add a whole new dimension to gameplay. Jagged Alliance 2 is a good example of this. You can wait until nighttime to tackle an occupied sector, which allows for stealthily picking off the enemies one by one.

In a fantasy RPG the time of day can also affect how certain spells and creatures behave. This is obviously the case in D&D.

 

[Delterius]

But NO ONE is asking for extensive and detailed NPC scheduling that changes between day and night.

That's so fucking stupid then.

That's what you want, a filter with minimal graphics whoring to it?

You don't want a proper, immersive game that is designed around the day and night cycle?

I thought you were asking for a completely different take on RPGs, but I guess that was too much.

Good thing they aren't listening then.

Seriously, when you meet a vampire in BG3 just turn down the monitor's lighting. Same effect. Same level of 'CoSmEtIc VaRiAtIoN' as in BG1.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

This is a completely made-up problem.

It's not. The same plot wouldn't work in BG1 or 2's system. You should know this if you've played the game.

BG had a similar system of dreams etc., but they didn't actually do anything in BG2, and BG1 just had a handful of mandatory rests to progress the bhaal powers story.

The entire mindflayer tadpole rest plot progression would take place inside of the starter dungeon in BG2 for some people.

BG1 and 2 admittedly didn't have much going for them in terms of scheduling, but they still had examples for the list I made in spades, plus a certain number of NPC just swapping in and out between day and night... Which while basic is still better than the... absolute nothing that is the alternative.

Except it's not nothing. There are things that happen at night. They just happen at the camp. Some conversations can only be had at night.

It's not really the hard problem you are making out to be, not to mention there would also be the second option/compromise of just making the potential "Camping sites" pre-established spots on the existing map, like Solasta does.

So waste map space then. Solasta is the last game anyone should emulate btw. Boring crap. It's got a good implementation of a meh ruleset, but not much else.

You'd have plenty of control of the geometry and characters interaction in it while not dealing with the disappointing and immersion-breaking abstract that is "Every time we rest, we teleport away in our pocket dimension".

There's nothing immersion breaking. You're just going back to camp. You can go there during the day as well.

BTW, I like how an hour passing in 5 minutes time doesn't break immersion at all to you, and neither does carrying around camping gear with invisible backpacks, but having to go back to camp to rest? Oh no! Not that! Help! I'm not immersed!

I agree, and I consider a decent and even barely convincing day(night cycle far more important than some of the things they prioritized. Not to mention far less wasteful than, say, "Origin Characters".
What's worst: its implementation gets increasingly harder if you don't account for it from the get go, so they basically set themselves for failure with messed-up priorities.

Origin characters are a gameplay feature that impacts the game. There's value there for those who enjoy it. Day/night cycles are cosmetic.

One brings replayability. The other mildly irritates a handful of people on this forum.

 

[Saravan]

The only thing that matters is great combat. Literally everything else can be mediocre and it will be lifted by combat. This is also why PF:KM/WotR are shit games despite boasting really deep build customization because the games horribly fails in encounter design. Autistically worrying about day/night cycles is like item #5821 on the list of things that makes or breaks a cRPG.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The effect of a day/night cycle doesn't have to be limited to specific quests, it can add a whole new dimension to gameplay.

Again, you're ignoring my point. In this case, it could create a plot hole at the beginning and take away something from the game that they intended to be there from the start. Assuming you're using a compressed time-scale like BG 1 & 2, that is.

You have a tadpole growing in your brain. Time is a big factor, though not on the scale you think it is at first.

I will say that it probably could be done, if they made the time factor real time. But then you'd have most players resting at all sorts of odd hours and having to time things out to even see daylight or nighttime. A lot harder than when an hour of game time takes 5 minutes in BG1 & 2.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

But NO ONE is asking for extensive and detailed NPC scheduling that changes between day and night.

That's so fucking stupid then.

That's what you want, a filter with minimal graphics whoring to it?

You don't want a proper, immersive game that is designed around the day and night cycle?

I thought you were asking for a completely different take on RPGs, but I guess that was too much.

Good thing they aren't listening then.

Seriously, when you meet a vampire in BG3 just turn down the monitor's lighting. Same effect. Same level of 'CoSmEtIc VaRiAtIoN' as in BG1.

As a BASIC I want the FOUNDATIONS to be there so that something can be built over it.
If you start with "OH NO, IT WOULD BE SO MUCH WORK TO DO THIS AT ITS BEST" nothing good will ever come from it and you are never going any-fucking-where.

For instance even the most basic implementation of day and night cycle would open a world for modders. A world that just isn't here now.
So the only thing "fucking stupid" here is how short sighted you can be in your obtusity.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

As a BASIC I want the FOUNDATIONS to be there so that something can be built over it.

>please waste time implementing a feature you won't use and that will likely introduce bugs or be bugged

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Again, you're ignoring my point. In this case, it could create a plot hole at the beginning and take away something from the game that they intended to be there from the start. Assuming you're using a compressed time-scale like BG 1 & 2, that is.

Because you point isn't ANY good, and you are making up a problem yourself (i.e. an hyper-compressed time scale that no one particularly agreed on) as an excuse to justify it.

>please waste time implementing a feature you won't use and that will likely introduce bugs or be bugged

You have no clue of what you are talking about.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Because you point isn't ANY good and you are making up a problem yourself (i.e. an hyper-compressed time scale that no one particularly agreed on) as an excuse to justify it.

No, the time compression was an afterthought. The problem of the plot is evident in the game itself. If you think it isn't, say how it isn't. Otherwise, you're just deflecting.

Also, I gave the reason why the timescale needs to be compressed, and it's the way it is in BG 1 & 2.

And if you had time run uncompressed and the odd rest issues don't bother you, you'd still have the issue of this constant timer running that the devs have no control over story-wise. What happens if the player goes afk and a day passes? Lots of tracking to be done that doesn't need to be.

>please waste time implementing a feature you won't use and that will likely introduce bugs or be bugged

You have no clue of what you are talking about.

This is a really stupid argument.

How do I know that they aren't using the feature? Because they aren't. How do I know that it could introduce bugs or be bugged? Because any feature can.

You're getting assmad over day/night cycles in a game you've known for 3 or 4 years wouldn't have them. Reevaluate this.

 

[Cross]

You have a tadpole growing in your brain. Time is a big factor, though not on the scale you think it is at first.

In Mask of the Betrayer you had a parasite devouring you from the inside and that game still had a day/night cycle.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

In Mask of the Betrayer you had a parasite devouring you from the insisde and that game still had a day/night cycle.

It wasn't devouring you on a timer tied to days. I assume you know that and are half joking though.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

No, the time compression was an afterthought. The problem of the plot is evident in the game itself. If you think it isn't, say how it isn't. Otherwise, you're just deflecting.

That's my point: you are specifically imagining a quest POORLY designed to fit the constraints of the game and attempting to use it as an excuse for dismissing an entire set of features that could be, you know, used properly instead.

Also, I gave the reason why the timescale needs to be compressed, and it's the way it is in BG 1 & 2.

It doesn't "need to" because time-skipping remains an option.
And the compression can be adjusted/negotiated to fit the game's pace anyway. Deciding from the start that the game would surely have "a bad one" and then complaining that it's bad is idiotic at best.

This is a really stupid argument. How do I not know that they aren't using the feature? Because they aren't. How do I know that it could introduce bugs or be bugged? Because any feature can.

What's genuinely stupid is your poor understanding of it.
We already went through it: a BASIC implementation of a day/night cycle even in absence of super-complex scheduling ALREADY comes with its own set of benefits and improvement to the game's immersion.
On top of that it ALSO sets the foundations to build more over it, expand, improve and add content tailored around the feature.
Conversely starting from the beginning with "I don't know if we should do it. It can be a lot of work to make it AWESOME, so let's build the rest and then evaluate" is setting yourself for failure, because in the very moment you'd decide to go back to the initial decision the work necessary would now be increased significantly.

You're getting assmad over day/night cycles in a game you've known for 4 years wouldn't have them. Reevaluate this.

I already accepted that this game doesn't and WON'T have a day/night cycle years ago.

It doesn't mean I can't argue why that was not a good decision.
Or worse that I should be the blind fanboy and attempt to rationalize why "that was achtually for the best" like you are doing.

 

[Cross]

In Mask of the Betrayer you had a parasite devouring you from the insisde and that game still had a day/night cycle.

It wasn't devouring you on a timer tied to days. I assume you know that and are half joking though.

It was on a timer tied to the passage of time. So depending on how it's measured, it was essentially tied to days.

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

It was on a timer tied to the passage of time. So yes, it was essentially tied to days.

Do you understand nothing about mindflayer tadpoles? It's not the same. It's just some nebulous "spirit energy" concept, and you can feed it more energy by devour souling stuff.

You can't feed a mindflayer tadpole someone else's brain.

 

[Swen]

Tuco with his austim again. Day/night isn't that important and the "toilet chain" system is not a big problem either.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Tuco with his austim again. Day/night isn't that important and the "toilet chain" system is not a big problem either.

Fuck off, Swen.
And learn to wear an armor properly without looking like my granny's water boiler.

 

[Cross]

It was on a timer tied to the passage of time. So yes, it was essentially tied to days.

Do you understand nothing about mindflayer tadpoles? It's not the same. It's just some nebulous "spirit energy" concept, and you can feed it more energy by devour souling stuff.

You can't feed a mindflayer tadpole someone else's brain.

The process of replacing the host brain is supposed to only take a few hours, so if that's your argument, Baldur's Gate 3 has already failed.

I do find it amusing that your argument boils down to "muh tadpole biology". What about all the creature and spell descriptions in D&D that explicitly list how they interact with day/night?

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

The process of replacing the host brain is supposed to only take a few hours, so if that's your argument, Baldur's Gate 3 has already failed.

I do find it amusing that your argument boils down to "muh tadpole biology". What about all the creatures and spells in D&D that explicitly list how they interact with day/night?

The claim that the situation is entirely different is also baseless because the game itself goes out of its way to tell you how special your tadpole is and how apparently you aren't that much in a hurry to save yourself from transforming, after all.

 

[Delterius]

As a BASIC I want the FOUNDATIONS

foundations to NOTHING

you want cosmetic bullshit and you consider 'choices and consequences' to be an unworthy focus. you prefer a bridge to NOWHERE in place of things that ACTUALLY MATTER

I don't want a BASIC take on RPGs. I want this vision of the game to be well realized. Simple as.

 

[Reinhardt]

"day" "night" "many meaningful" and then you walk into underdark and SUDDENLY nobody sleeps anymore.