Official Thread Baldur's Gate 3
- Thread starter Grimmy
- Start date
I hard disagree. At launch, the 3rd act was nearly unplayable on mid to great PC hardware and that's before we get into the many game breaking bugs. Heck they're still fixing the endings NOW. The 1st patch, a month out from launch was 2.2 gigs, had patch notes of an unheard of 60 pages long and literally had 1000 fixes in it. Act 3 was so unfinished and broken as released and VERY few people called them out on it. Jason Schreier was one of the few that did then promptly deleted his tweet.
The PS5 version out the gate had such bad performance issues and bugs in Act 3 that the game was rendered unplayable until Larian patched it again. And that was before the PS5 save bug reared its ugly head and caused the game to crash at load.
I get that ALOT of people like/Love the game. But its revisionist history to say the game didn't come out extremely hot and warranted the same scrutiny Cyberpunk got. The difference being that Cyberpunks issues were readily visible from the get go. Whereas BG3 you had to get further in the game to start seeing the issues and by then it was too late.
Last edited:
I think I remember where you're at. You sound like you're a bit under leveled. Treat it like an JRPG like I did and grind for experience, better weapons/armor and skills. Also there are multiple ways to attack your issue. I wouldn't fight the dragon people just yet. There are other ways around that fight. Also, did you stick with fighter? If you did, I'm sorry. That class just seems to be weak in this version of the game. I finished as a fighter but boy did I try to talk my way out of EVERY fight. A bit of warning, if you stick with it. There is a part in Act 3 where you go to Hell if you choose. That level alone will make you question your fighter build and throw a chair in fustration, if you are so inclined.
Last edited:
Ah my bad, I've seen people say their game bugged out and had to fight the dragon haha.
I've been playing on easy enemy aggression, but normal encounters and haven't had too many dramas so far.
Steam Community :: Guide :: Short walkthrough and quest order for acts 1-2-3
I keep having issues in every Larian game with finding a correct quest order, and worrying about something breaking, characters disappearing or not joining my camp, so I decided to post a very basic wsteamcommunity.com
This post seems like a good guide for the quest order, it's easy to miss entire sub plots in this game.
I don't like using guides but this game almost requires one. You can miss 2-3 recruit-able character in Act 1 alone if you're not careful or do things out of order, or the game bugs out on you.
I'm done with this game. I honestly think I did something wrong. I have 3 options on where to go next, all filled with level 5 people who wreck me. I hit for 3-4 damage, while they hit for 20+. My hit % for my fighter is 30% most swings. I can get a height advantage for range, but that gets me to 50%, and maybe 5 damage. I have a sword that is supposed to hit 6-16, but I never see more than 3-4. Meanwhile, my party is half dead before I even get a turn.
Pretty sure I did something to soft lock myself. My entire map is blank now with nothing on it. No side missions, no main missions, just enemies that keep respawning and killing me.
Pretty sure I did something to soft lock myself. My entire map is blank now with nothing on it. No side missions, no main missions, just enemies that keep respawning and killing me.
I got the game late, so never experiance any major bug. If its game breaking, then it need to be called out.I hard disagree. At launch, the 3rd act was nearly unplayable on mid to great PC hardware and that's before we get into the many game breaking bugs. Heck they're still fixing the endings NOW. The 1st patch, a month out from launch was 2.2 gigs, had patch notes of an unheard of 60 pages long and literally had 1000 fixes in it. Act 3 was so unfinished and broken as released and VERY few people called them out on it. Jason Schreier was one of the few that did then promptly deleted his tweet.
The PS5 version out the gate had such bad performance issues and bugs in Act 3 that the game was rendered unplayable until Larian patched it again. And that was before the PS5 save bug reared its ugly head and caused the game to crash at load.
I get that ALOT of people like/Love the game. But its revisionist history to say the game didn't come out extremely hot and warranted the same scrutiny Cyberpunk got. The difference being that Cyberpunks issues were readily visible from the get go. Whereas BG3 you had to get further in the game to start seeing the issues and by then it was too late.
You see, game journalists and youtuber declared Larian the golden boy for Release a complete unbroken boy, and using it to attack other AAA developers. If they call out its issues, it will backfire their narrative/agenda.
There is defintely bias & "politcs" in gaming community & jorunalism.
I still think it was not Cyberpunk level bad.
Last edited:
I think another of Cyberpunk's big problems was the hype and promise of it being the be all end all game. Which is very much CDPR's fault. Now don't get me wrong CDPR did ALOT of things wrong for Cyberpunk's launch. My biggest issue with the game wasn't the performance or bugs, the game flat out is not the game the advertised and hyped for years, it just isn't. So while they eventually recovered, I will NEVER believe anything they or critics say about their product ever again due to the devs and reviews literally lying to our face about the game at launch.
BG3 didn't have nearly the hype and kinda had the indy aw shucks feel to it. But behind the curtain was an unfinished product that should have been called out instead of praised. If a consumer on whatever platform cannot complete the game as is, that should be called out, not excused as them being "very ambitious" and "a relatively small team"
and it getting GOTY praise is hilarious.I hard disagree. At launch, the 3rd act was nearly unplayable on mid to great PC hardware and that's before we get into the many game breaking bugs. Heck they're still fixing the endings NOW. The 1st patch, a month out from launch was 2.2 gigs, had patch notes of an unheard of 60 pages long and literally had 1000 fixes in it. Act 3 was so unfinished and broken as released and VERY few people called them out on it. Jason Schreier was one of the few that did then promptly deleted his tweet.
The PS5 version out the gate had such bad performance issues and bugs in Act 3 that the game was rendered unplayable until Larian patched it again. And that was before the PS5 save bug reared its ugly head and caused the game to crash at load.
I get that ALOT of people like/Love the game. But its revisionist history to say the game didn't come out extremely hot and warranted the same scrutiny Cyberpunk got. The difference being that Cyberpunks issues were readily visible from the get go. Whereas BG3 you had to get further in the game to start seeing the issues and by then it was too late.
Can't say I agree on BG3 not having the hype. It was the game to shame all games. It was supposedly so good and so well polished that other devs were furious. Lol.
Played through cyberpunk on Xbox One X, performance wise I didn't really feel it was bad at all... definitely not warranted the backlash imo.
Now, the game wasn't an amazing game in other regards imo... it was a good game that didn't live up to my expectations, but I'm not feeling entitled to it being a 10/10, very few games are.
Now, the game wasn't an amazing game in other regards imo... it was a good game that didn't live up to my expectations, but I'm not feeling entitled to it being a 10/10, very few games are.
Did you play on release? Mine kept crashing every 10 minutes, glitches galore, heck I got BG3 several months after release and experienced annoying bugs and glitches, you just get that with RPGs this day and age.
Starfield was probably the most polished out of the 3 at launch, could easily leave it in quick resume and not have problems, just the gameplay didn't resonate as much with me as cyberpunk, fallout etc.
The more I played this game the more I questioned the hype around it, just really felt like the perfect storm of people wanting something different plus being the journalists darling of a game.
I restarted a new character. In hindsight, I needed to be level 5 before moving on in act 1 apparently (the game does nothing to communicate this). All my side quests just turned off, but I couldn't get past anything.
I do enjoy this game, the turn based combat is good. The problem I was having was just being out leveled to where everything just became mathematically impossible. I'm now rolling through early combat again without even taking damage.
The fact that this game gets such critical praise shows what a laughable state this industry is in. I have no doubt in my mind that if EA or MS made this exact game, it would have been given lower reviews.
The media fell hard for the cool "indie" developer, and clearly ignored many other factors.
There's so many faults being ignored, and that's not even including launch issues:
-Camera controls are laughably bad, and actually make the game harder (easy to miss an enemy from an elevated position)
-Having dozens of save points seems to be the only way to play. "Save scumming" is an absolute necessity, as a bad luck roll can completely ruin a playthrough. I'm playing through long after launch and read a bunch of guides on things "not to miss" and still missed major things along the way and even soft locked my game.
-Even with multiple patches, I've already found tons of broken dialog in the first act. Conversations will still suddenly change topics for no reason.
-The interface is really lacking. What happens to my hit % if I move here? No way to tell without doing it (and save scumming). Will I have a line of sight or will a tiny tree block me?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the depth to the game. I actually like turn based games, but when has a non-Civilization type turn based game ever gotten any praise? X-Com and Battletech were much better turn based combat games.
The exploration and dialog is really good, but not nearly as good as reviewers have said. It is comical in my opinion that Starfield got panned so badly over this game. I'd put both games a lot closer to each other (and ultimately, they are very different games, Starfield is meant to be an fps rpg, while BG3 obviously a very hardcore turn based D&D RPG.
I do enjoy this game, the turn based combat is good. The problem I was having was just being out leveled to where everything just became mathematically impossible. I'm now rolling through early combat again without even taking damage.
The fact that this game gets such critical praise shows what a laughable state this industry is in. I have no doubt in my mind that if EA or MS made this exact game, it would have been given lower reviews.
The media fell hard for the cool "indie" developer, and clearly ignored many other factors.
There's so many faults being ignored, and that's not even including launch issues:
-Camera controls are laughably bad, and actually make the game harder (easy to miss an enemy from an elevated position)
-Having dozens of save points seems to be the only way to play. "Save scumming" is an absolute necessity, as a bad luck roll can completely ruin a playthrough. I'm playing through long after launch and read a bunch of guides on things "not to miss" and still missed major things along the way and even soft locked my game.
-Even with multiple patches, I've already found tons of broken dialog in the first act. Conversations will still suddenly change topics for no reason.
-The interface is really lacking. What happens to my hit % if I move here? No way to tell without doing it (and save scumming). Will I have a line of sight or will a tiny tree block me?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the depth to the game. I actually like turn based games, but when has a non-Civilization type turn based game ever gotten any praise? X-Com and Battletech were much better turn based combat games.
The exploration and dialog is really good, but not nearly as good as reviewers have said. It is comical in my opinion that Starfield got panned so badly over this game. I'd put both games a lot closer to each other (and ultimately, they are very different games, Starfield is meant to be an fps rpg, while BG3 obviously a very hardcore turn based D&D RPG.
Most of the reviewers didn't finish Act 1. I think its a good game mind you but not the critical darling everyone is making it out to be. I do agree that for whatever reason minor and critical flaws in the game were overlooked, continuously by critics and the industry in general.
The first act is tough. It does get easier as you progress if you explored. I think there is level imbalance at beginning, & you will hav a hard time when facing foes 1-2 level higher, or even same level but comes in numbers. ANd often you are underlevel.
When I done I think as much as I could in act 1, I am level 4, and had to aviod combat when possible sometimes.
Yea the crashes were crap, framerate was average, T poses were hilarious, people love to hate but I think one of the big things they hated on was all the features that were taken out from the trailers to release, I loved the game one of the very few games I've played through twice.
I have it (got it on sale), haven’t dived in yet. I’m curious, what was in the game that didn’t make the final release?
Had less crashes then many other games not mentioned in mainstream reviews. Framerate might've been average, but didn't notice it except some bottlenecks (infamous shootout in the beginning). Didn't experience any remarkable glitching tbh. This on One X though, so can't speak of PS4 or PC.
I did enjoyed cyberpunk, but I did experience a bad glitch that never got awAy. I even posted it on the official cdr red forum. Basically in every zoom call, an extra person will be on video screen , usually the butt on the caller that took away any immersion.
It’s enjoyable but not great let alone game hangs like they claim.
It’s enjoyable but not great let alone game hangs like they claim.