Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access

This game just hit EA the other day. Anyone get it yet? I’ve been thinking about it… the level of interaction with the environment looks amazing.

On the other hand I don’t know if I want to wait for release or not. I hear the game is still kinda rough.

It’s been a really long time since I’ve paid $60 for a game. This might break that streak.

Getting it in Early Access then?

I don’t really see a reason to rush to get single player / story driven games in early access. I’m not against early access in all its forms. Especially if a game is promising, trying to be an independent game without a publisher, but needs the early access funds to develop the game. But this is from a big successful studio and doesn’t need that kind of support.

Multiplayer games where you want to play a game and learn with the community and you’re not sure how long it’ll last? Sure. Open-ended games like roguelikes where it’s not really incomplete, they’re just adding features? Yeah, okay. But story-driven single player games? You’re just going to experience an unrefined version of the story that comes to a stop somewhere, has gaps, has missing backstory and sidequests. Will you re-run the game over and over as they add more of the story and more of the missing content?

Would you have wanted to play The Witcher 3 when it was halfway done, where the story ends halfway through, a lot of dialogue was missing, and a lot of the quests didn’t exist? No, it would’ve ruined the experience for you when you finally got the play the full thing. I don’t see why this would be any different.

That’s exactly why I haven’t gotten the game yet. On the other hand, if it is less like The Witcher and more like Skyrim - where I’m going to play through it a dozen times with a dozen characters anyways - then its less of a factor.

I wasn’t a big fan of Divinity: Original Sin 2. Is this version of BG supposed to be somewhat similar? I just read a review that says it starts with a shipwreck and meeting the other survivors (which seems kind of familiar).

From reading Reddit, if you liked Divinity, you’ll like this. After the name, and a few of the locations, it doesn’t have much to do with BG1 or 2 at all.

My concern from watching EA videos is that the gameplay looks padded to cover up for a lack of content. Gorgeous though, and the parts I saw were really grimdark—rooting around in some poor bastard’s skull to extricate an Intellect Devourer, complete with squishing sounds—which would be novel Baldur’s Gate gameplay.

I’m not a purchaser at 60, but then I’m not an early adopter on this stuff anyway.

How was DOS anyways? Never heard of it at the time but it has real good reviews

I’ve been playing it for a few days, and… I cautiously recommend it.

One big problem I have with it is the similarities it has with Divinity’s gameplay- specifically, the elemental surfaces, and how they interact with spells. Cast Grease on a group, and then shoot one of them with a Firebolt cantrip: now they’re all on fire, and they’re standing in fire. Heck, you don’t even have to do that with the Grease spell, or anything else, really- just hitting someone with Firebolt damages them, sets them on fire, and sets the ground underneath them on fire. And whenever they try to move out of that area, they take even more damage.

And elemental stuff is freakin’ everywhere. Every group of goblins has acid arrows (which cover an area with acid which does damage and gives you -2 AC, and when you try to move through or out of that area you take even more damage. There are barrels everywhere- oil, water, you name it. The elemental interactions were fun (if drastically overused) in Larian’s previous games. It really doesn’t fit the 5E experience.

I’m hoping they tone that kind of thing down, 'cause right now it’s just annoying.

I mean, I did with Subnautica and am doing that with Below Zero. If the gameplay is fun, I enjoy the process of playing it, and watching new updates come adds some excitement.

I get why it’s not for everyone, but can you see why it’s for some folks?

I don’t want to tell anyone to have fun, so I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but wouldn’t you have enjoyed it more if you had waited for a complete product before playing it?

I understand that sometimes the answer to that is no. For instance, multiplayer EA games are often in early access for a long time, and on some, most of the most active playerbase was during EA, and by the time it’s out it’s past its peak. So I get that. Or games that are almost ready, but just EA for a few weeks or months to polish and add features - it’s probably better to wait, but you’re getting most of the experience.

But with story driven RPGs - I don’t know how much content the game has, but I know the EA periods in the previous Larian games - you could only progress so far into the story, the inter-character dialogue/options were spotty, a lot of side quests and content were blank. It seems to me like watching a movie as they film the scenes, releasing one scene at a time, sometimes without special effects, sometimes without the dialogue being fully written out. And hey, the movie and characters are so cool that you still manage to enjoy it piecemeal, but the whole it would be better to experience it as a cohesive experience.

If you disagree and enjoy it anyway, that’s fine, but since the OP was asking about whether he should get it in EA, that’s my opinion on that.

That was the crux of my issues with Divinity:OS 2. The novelty of standing in fire or poison (say) mostly wore off after playing Divinity:OS 1, and adding cursed fire and cursed poison to Divinity:OS 2 didn’t really improve things.

It depends on how much of the experience is the story. I’d never be interested in reading a novel in its earliest draft, because the story’s the thing for me there.

But in a game like Divinity, the story’s not really the thing for me. I enjoy the pretty flashy lights, I enjoy the tactical combat, I enjoy the power build.

And in a game like Subnautica, it’s pretty similar: the beauty of the setting, the power build, the sandbox sensation, are all drivers of the fun for me.

I play a ton of 5e D&D these days (running one weekly game and playing in another), most I’ve played since I was an adolescent. Yay pandemic! I really love the rules and the combat experience, and would enjoy futzing around with them in a CRPG, even if it were a series of one-shot encounters similar to XCom.

The hurdle for me isn’t whether I’d have fun with it. The hurdle is the price tag.

I cannot find a good answer to a couple of questions:

How do “action points” work? It doesn’t help that I am much more familiar with 3e and 4e than 5e, but the Ars Technica review suggested the action economy does not work in BG3 the way it works in 5e.

I think the author wasn’t familiar with “dashing”, but I’m not sure, and I’m a little confused by 5e’s action economy to begin with. (I basically think of it in 2e terms, essentially manufacturing a move action split from the standard action each round, and it probably will only matter if I’m dazed.)

I also want to know if it’s turn-based or not. It’s controversial to support either position, but I am personally only interested in playing if it is turn-based. I want it to be as close to the tabletop game as possible. Other reviews have been … unclear … on that point.

It sounds like the author is just confused. You have a Move action, a Standard action, and one of the uses for a Standard Action is to move further. So if he casts a spell and doesn’t move he wants to be able to cast again or something, because he has two ‘action points’ and only used one. But in reality, he used his action for something other than movement, and then was upset because he couldn’t convert his movement into actions.

The only difference from PNP is that you move in meters, not on a grid.

All combat is turn based, and you can even turn on turn based mode for stealth or puzzle sections which allows for more tactical play, from my understanding

You know, when you put it that way, I have no idea why I haven’t picked this up yet! I’ll definitely sink enough hours into it to justify the price tag.

The only two points that make me hesitate are, I started a Pathfinder Kingmaker playthrough since I’ve never played that before despite owning it forever and maybe I should give that a chance to distract me first; and second Cyberpunk will probably be something I want to sink a lot of hours into as well.

The complaints about combat in that article don’t really worry me: I’m very accustomed to the differences between movement and standard actions in D&D, and I know that many times it’s not worth spending your entire movement.

But the complaints about characters does bother me. I’m not a fan of games that force you to play an asshole. When it comes to my D&D games, I want more Errol Flynn and less Game of Thrones; Stranger Things, not Sopranos. It’s okay if there’s horror, and the mind-flayer plot looks super-cool; but if the game forces me to kill civilians, I’m not at all a fan of that approach.

Yeah, character straight-jacketing is a minor pet peeve of mine. It can be done pretty well and I have no complaints about playing a literary character like Geralt in Witcher 3. But if I’m doing a party-centric rpg I prefer more flexibility. A basic back-story is fine, but leave the player character’s motivations and values vague.

Story does matter to me a bit, so I won’t be shelling out $60 to play a quarter of a game in beta (or whatever it is). If it was $9, maybe.

Per the devs, that’s why your current companions are all assholes. They’ve seen in prior games that users take the good path far more often than the evil (60-40 to 80-20 depending on the game) so they put the evil companions in first so they’d get their share of beta testing. Apparently this was an issue in D: OS2’s beta.