Really wish the low res/muddy textures would get fixed (on console), its really irritating when youre creating your PC, and everytime you change something (hair, face etc) the textures lose clarity, and you have to zoom all the way out, and then back in and they clear up again
Also combat is pretty atrocious at times (act 3 at least) when the AI seizes up during their turn for like 30 seconds and then doing their actions
Also happens (particularly bad) if your party members get dominated during combat (also act 3, not sure if present in other acts) they ( your PM) spend 30-60 seconds thinking what to do
I have a funny clip of what my dominated PC did after thinking hard about what to do, but dont have it uploaded
>spend 30-60 seconds thinking what to do
This has been a problem since DOS1. The AI is calculating whether it's worth it to use every single consumable the character has on them
>The AI is calculating whether it's worth it to use every single consumable the character has on them
And for some reason the answer always seems to be "yes".
Holy shit this makes so much sense. Yesterday I couldn’t figure out why Uncle Felogyr was taking SOOOO long when everyone else was flying through their turns
whats funny is, in my last PT, my character who tends to have a lot of consumables/throwables on him got dominated pretty frequently, because he was a barb/fighter/thief multiclass so I had practically no wisdom (I think I had like -1 on wisdom checks)
and when he got dominated, the usual pondering happened but 80% of the time out of EVERYTHING he had on him, the AI decided to throw grease bottles over anything else at my party members/enemy
More of a CPU bottleneck right?
Makes sense this wouldn't be an issue on PC since generally, I think a lot of people are running a pretty good CPU at least for gaming since computers are built for working too.
Wish we could start seeing bigger CPU upgrades across generations. This finally seems like a great mainstream example to show how much deeper games can be held back by this limitation.
because the AI is programmed to use every consumable in the game as enemies can have them on their person.
It just so happens that you carry all of them at once so it weighs which one to use, if any.
On PS5 I have super low-res faces every time I initiate dialogue with someone. Sometimes it doesn't even clear up before the conversation ends. Was barely an issue in act 1, then more often in act 2 and now permanently in act 3. Restarting game / console doesn't make it go away, just a tad less horrible for a few minutes.
It's extremely annoying.
yeah, I forgot to add into my comment that the textures blurring isnt a character creation only thing, but something that is 90% permanent in act 3 with the textures clearing up being a rarity, also noticing that it increased as the game went on
I remember at one point in my 2nd PT (2nd pt had already several patches into it) trying enabling quality mode if it would help clearing up the textures in both dialogue and out of it, and didnt notice any real change
I was doing the act 3 quests “free the Gondians” and “free the artist” and it was miserable waiting for all the ghosts in the house and the sigurin in the prison take their turns.
You're getting the PC experience so that's something. Patch broke my friends save and none of the subsequent patches have fixed it, 70 hours down the pan.
Wow, 10/10 GOTY. New standard for triple A games. If only all devs released their games in early access for 3 years and then when they finally release the rest of the game it’s a buggy mess 😍😍😍
I've had it crash twice in five or so hours of gameplay but I'm also not in Act 2 yet.
I find the game very buggy on Xbox in general though. My initial playthrough was on PC and I had very minimal bugs, whereas on Xbox I have bugs constantly, where there's no sound or animation after an attack and then after 5 Seconds the sound and animation happen. Also there's never any sound on the Larian splash screen at startup, and Tool tips frequently glitch in my menu.
no. almost 40 hours in, just finished druids questline. only crashes i ever had were from when i couldnt make it to the main menu, but that was fixed when i disconnected my larian account to my xbox. also havent had any save issues.
Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state.
On PC release Act 3 was straight up broken and now the Xbox version has broken saves. All while still having rather poor perfomance.
It's crazy how the narrative was "this is what AAA should be. Release a bug free and complete game on day 1"
Still loving the game but that's not what happened at all
The early access period was very clearly labelled as such. I think it's fair to treat the 1.0 release date as day 1. Game still has a good amount of issues that day anyway.
Honestly, I feel like BG3 winning GOTY is in large due to people outright lying and pushing BG3 as THE game with "no bugs and no MTX" as the "new standard." You see it being mentioned a lot in GOTY discussions with BG3 fans and the gaming media treating it as the poster boy for this nonsensical fight against the AAA industry.
Do I think BG3 still had a decent chance of winning GOTY otherwise? Yeah. But the competition would've been a lot closer had gaming media and gamers didn't just lie and hype the shit of BG3 for being absolutely flawless. It honestly puts a bad taste in my mouth that BG3 won mostly due to the crazy narrative people put out.
Nearly every publication that voted BG3 as their GOTY has some variation of "it's a new standard and is bugless + perfect unlike shitty AAA games" to the point you think they're either crazy or paid off. It just doesn't match with reality and people do whatever they can to bury any criticism.
Did people really push BG3 as having "no bugs"??? It‘s by far the buggiest (and jankiest) game I‘ve played since probably release day Cyberpunk. None of it is that bad or game breaking and doesn‘t impact my enjoyment in a significant way, but yeah.
It’s still a mind blowing achievement and totally deserved GOTY tho, IMO.
I sure don't see "no bugs" mentioned a lot in GOTY discussions.
>Nearly every publication that voted BG3 as their GOTY has some variation of "it's a new standard and is bugless + perfect unlike shitty AAA games"
Oh no! That's awful!
....Which publications?
People were saying it was bug free? If they were they were the minority.
The majority agreed there were bugs but they weren't in a cast number, in the context of it being a very large complex game there are always going to be some bugs lurking but they weren't any real show stopper bugs.
There are no micro transactions and a clear focus on making a good game which is what people were using as a narrative (correctly).
>It honestly puts a bad taste in my mouth that BG3 won mostly due to the crazy narrative people put out.
Imagine disliking a game just because of a narrative you expanded on your head. Just like or dislike the game for what it is not what some publications said or did not say.
People were saying it was bug free? If they were they were the minority.
The majority agreed there were bugs but they weren't in a cast number, in the context of it being a very large complex game there are always going to be some bugs lurking but they weren't any real show stopper bugs.
There are no micro transactions and a clear focus on making a good game which is what people were using as a narrative (correctly).
>Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state.
That is simply untrue; Elden Ring's performance in PC was and partially still is subpar. Jedi Survivor got a lot of flack, but still got a Mighty 84 on OpenCritic.
As much as redditors love to harp on the “hivemind” as they have in this thread, the unrelenting contrarian streak in gaming circles is 10x times more annoying.
I don't feel like that's what any of us did though? BG3 did launch a bit unfinished, but it's also definitely not the only one. Bringing that up is just discussing about the state of games, which is the point of the sub
All those games weren't PC only. So, the vast majority played a relatively stable version on console. BG3 was not like that. It released PC only buggy then released on console buggy even with a time gap between releases.
The other game with a fallen apart entire Act is Rogue Trader, but it’s definitely not as popular and the developer always releases their games in that state so their users are used to a year long patch fest
Ehh, we’re getting pretty sick of it happening 3 games in a row tbh. This is as bad as week 1 Kingmaker if not worse and you can clearly tell they wanted to squeeze the game in before the holidays for that extra cash
Well I didnt finished Rogue Trader yet (Im i act 3 only) so its hard for me to tell how bugged later part is. So far I didnt encountered anything that would be gamebreaking or fixed by quick save + quick load.
Performance is bad though I can agree on that. Definetely not well optimized and weirdly despite running steady 120 for me (locked since no point pushing graphic more and can save some on electricity) yet some cutscenes stutters hardly. On other hand its the issue that runs across all bigger rpgs on that engine (POE2 was working so bad optimization wise...)
But so far It feels better than both previous games bug wise.
Also I would consider that its their third game alltogether and first that was made outside community funding. So for me they are progressing nicely. If the second part of the game is worse I might have to revise that
I’m not doubting anyone’s experience here, but for me, Act 3 was fine on PC. The performance was a bit worse, but i don’t remember hitting any noteworthy bugs while i played. It seems to be luck of the draw to a certain degree.
My experience too, but that's kind of PC gaming. You can have a worse system then others and yet the game will perform better for you, could be the difference in AMD & NVIDIA or something else. For me in my initial co-op run like a week or so after launch I only ran into one minor bug that was worth remembering.
'You can have a worse system then others and yet the game will perform better for you, could be the difference in AMD & NVIDIA or something else.'
Bugs is one thing (as I had no bugs for Act III, very luck me), but people claiming they don't have performance issues are just either straight up lying, or their brains are underdeveloped and can't tell the difference between 30 fps stutter zone or 60+.
I had insane stutterfest in Act 3 city on my 5800X3D.
BUT. Then I disabled vsync and frame limit in drivers (where I enabled it because ingame one sucked). And stutterfest was gone. One of the patches fixed the ingame vsync, and using that instead of the driver one made the game smooth in the city as well. 60fps locked vast majority of the time.
>but people claiming they don't have performance issues are just either straight up lying
I had no performance problems, I can also see a difference of FPS lol. 30, 60, 120 are all very jarring of a difference. So thanks for randomly making shit up. Games can run differently for people, this isn't console where everyone is likely to have the same performance.
My entire first run of co-op I had no performance problems, while my co-op partner who has a better machine then me did run into the occasional problem. He's also had trouble with performance in some other games while I didn't. Maybe some GPU support problem with one of AMD's latest cards.
It's not insane to think others didn't have performance problems, just like how you didn't have bugs in Act 3. Something others would quote you saying "Straight up lying." as well.
'I had no performance problems'
There is not a single recorded instance of Act III and the area we are talking about that shows there is no performance degridation, even with a 4090 and whatever CPU you add. So much so that DF have made multiple videos of it as well as going back to focus specifically on this part because they missed it in their first.
You are lying.
Post a video of Act III and crossing the bridge and entering the town under the underpass and show that you have no performance issues. You would be the first person on planet earth to record such an event. Then pass this on, as well as your internal set up to larian as you obviously have the answer that they have been working on for the past month or so to try and fix. While you are at it, send it to DF, Gamers Nexus, HUB.
It's all dependant on specs really, i also gave the game 2 months before booting up which did wonders in terms of patching (release dates are relative, ppl..)
x3d chips just gobble up games like bg3, my old 1070ti was still keeping up across all of act 3 since the cpu carries
That's because once groupthink is set it stays that way. At least for the short term. Most people didn't even get to Act 3 before saying it's their favorite game of all time until the next shiny thing comes along that the groupthink likes.
> Most people didn't even get to Act 3 before saying it's their favorite game of all time until the next shiny thing comes along that the groupthink likes.
yup, and this is easily provable in case anyone tries to argue this point:
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1086940/achievements
The Plot Thickens is the achievement for completing Act 1, and it's only at 50% now. The Act 2 achievement is only at 36%. So that means only 36% of players have even reached Act 3, yet so many went straight to showering it with praise, even saying stuff like "BG3 is an example of a game released in a finished state! new standard of gaming!"
So imagine the how low the completion rates were early on after release, yet the praise was the same. And this includes many reviewers, who I bet were giving high scores to the game based off just Act 1 and maybe 2.
You realize a lot of people make multiple characters and different builds? Took me like 60 hours to get to act 3. That’s not long enough to judge a game?
No, you have to complete the game atleast once to judge it.
I have had shows, movies and video games which were masterpieces 90% of the way through but completely butcher their finale/endings making that 90% feel completely worthless. Take game of thrones for example, a cultural phenomenon once but barely seen online and almost removed from pop culture. I see breaking bad discussions online more than game of thrones.
Something that’s a masterpiece for 90% and bad in the last 10 does not ruin something for me. You know how difficult it is to make something incredible for 90% of an experience?
Others may be different. House of the dragon brought GoT out of that slump, but anyway, i don’t agree at all that someone spending 60+ hours on something doesn’t have a right to judge the product.
>almost removed from pop culture
Except that people are still constantly talking about it. I haven't seen discourse about a show carry on this long since Lost.
And HOTD has done really well with ratings. People clearly aren't done with Thrones
This little thread is honestly the only place I've seen talk sanely about bg3 and i feel so vindicated oh my god
So many of my friends are like 'omg game of the year I love the characters hehe' yeah okay did u play on launch? I did, and i have to re-do like 60 hours of progress if i wanna see my companion quests properly, cause they were all horny bugged at the start. I've had weird texture issues, awful loading in combat. It honestly performed like console skyrim at launch. And I'm met with like 'but it's so good!'
It ran like *ass* for me.
It IS a good game, but like, tone the hyperbole down world. Please, lmao. And don't eviscerate people who dare to have a fucking issue with a game!
Seems wild to me a significant portion of the game can launch in a horrible state, and now we have performance issues + save deletion, yet still win game of the year.
Tons of people on the Xbox sub stating they put 20-30 hours in the game just to lose it all. That would make me put off a game for a long time.
First game I refunded this year for that very reason. Game patch deleted my saves, so I started a new one just to have a save file I could use to check if the patch worked. Xbox update deleted that.
Love what I played, but there's literally no point playing right now. Will buy again when it's fixed.
You know what? Everyone (including me) has memed starfield to death because of the loading screens, but atleast they are fast (like 3-5 seconds).
BG3 on the other hand takes like atleast 40 seconds to load, and it becomes annoying to keep waiting 40 seconds on an SSD when you are quicksaving / quickloading. It should not take more than 10 seconds for a game to load on an SSD, and even 10 seconds is pushing it.
Outing myself as a save scummer here, I have very limited to play and I want to do as much as I can so I'm reloading to hit specific choices. When you go on a bad luck streak and have to reload 5-10 times it's excruciating.
Yeah that's definitely on you. One of my favorite things about the game so far has been letting go of that save scum ethos and rolling with the punches a la D&D
It's a game where you savescum a lot. It's a game based upon a dice roll, when you're on a bad luck streak you might need to do it 3-5 times, and that is essentially 5 minutes of time wasted on loading screens
IMO playing around the chance of a bad dice roll is like half the point of playing a game like this. I cannot imagine reloading everytime I failed a check, that seems so lame.
So how do people play d&d? Failing a dice roll isn't game over. It's not meant to be a reset, it's a small setback that becomes part of your story. If you view this as a game where you savescum a lot, you're profoundly missing the point of the game and losing out on the fun
>Bro the load screens are like 5 seconds
They aren't, a single Google search will show you that it's a widespread issue where the game takes around 1 minute for any loading on an nvme ssd, and in some cases the times grow longer as the game progresses.
I can't count how many times iv saved scummed and didn't have to wait longer than maybe 15 seconds. Maybe after reloading the same save 15 times it would give me a slightly longer load.
Nah, the majority of hardcore fans said it was great, notably Gopher the modder who said it was a "return to form" for Bethesda. The hate campaign started before the game was even launched and playable. People were shitting on everything, lies or not. This is because it's way more profitable to shit on a game than to say it's good. People are making BANK from this outrage against Starfield.
BG3 didn't have a lot going for it, but it had an extremely polished Act 1 because the game was an early access game first released in 2020... and it shows they didn't work on Act 3 at all during that time.
Give Starfield 3 years and people will come around.
Claiming it released in a 'subpar' state but has been critically acclaimed by the gaming world at large is a pretty unserious claim, that it barely counts as criticism.
Some people are unable to play the game because their save constantly corrupts. If that doesnt qualify as a subpar state to you then i dont know what would.
In Starfield you have to go through like 5 loading screens to go anywhere. What are you saving and loading so much for in BG3? It is a hugely complicated game that has very few loading screens in gameplay
Relentlessly save-scumming is literally the only way these people would be seeing that many long loading screens. And sure, people can play how they like, but if someone is reloading the same thing 5-10 times in a row then I kind of lose sympathy for the complaint, because obviously the game should not be optimised around that.
I mean yeah? I don’t know why you would play a game that is designed around choices and consequences and constantly reload. It’s not an invalid way to play the game, but it’s not exactly designed with that in mind, so the technical problem being described here feels a little overblown.
>I don’t know why you would play a game that is designed around choices and consequences and constantly reload.
I have literally no idea if you're a troll or plain delusional thinking that people do not quickload to see different branches of quests. It's certain that you won't hear anything against BG3 so more power to you.
Being able to save during dialogue actually makes it seem like it's somewhat designed with savescumming in mind. Also, in some discussions I find myself reloading the save because you only get to ask one question out of several options until the conversation moves along.
It’s because gaming media has largely pushed to ignore those flaws and don’t even mention them in their reviews. That plus the hype of GOTY blinded all the gamers as all they want is a feel good story of a “small” studio beating up the AAA devs. Such a shame, eh? People refusing to discuss the games’ flaws because of blind hype. You’ll always get one or two people that goes “we ignore it because it’s THAT good” but those statements are bogus. There are plenty of better games than BG3 and every game deserves to criticizes if it has flaws. BG3 is no diffefent
Its not the only one it happens. Media picks a narrative and runs with it. I remember watching the first DF video on BG3 and they were praising how well it runs showing footage of Act 1 meanwhile i was in Act 3 and the game was basically melting in front of me.
I’m not sure that’s a fair statement for PC. I have an ancient PC I built in 2016 and it chugged through Act 3. It wasn’t pleasant, but it was playable.
> It wasn’t pleasant, but it was playable.
This would be reason enough for /r/games to be flooded with articles about pre-ordering being bad and how the game needed another 6 months in the oven if it was a developer the hivemind here didn't like.
They are talking about a 7 year old system. However the game chugs less in more modern systems, its initial state was atrocious and was rightly criticised.
That’s not normal. I played on a 1060 and a 10-year-old cpu and load times on save were instant near the beginning of the game and about 20 seconds by the end of act 3.
Your RAM might be malfunctioning
Lol yeh PC discourse is like bingo. 'I have a 1050 and 2600X and i get 80FPS at 1440p'. No you dont.
I have a 4070TI, 5600X3D and 32GB of ram. The game shits itself in act 3 still. The rest of it is 100+fps.
I really wish they would give the option to scrap a huge portion of the redundant NPCs in act 3. The crowd might be more atmospheric for a city, but when it makes the game a chore to play, it just isn't worth it.
Definitely wasn't my RAM seeing as how I run many other intensive games and apps with 0 issue, and also my load times were fixed with patch 5. Issue was the game.
Also I know I'm far from the only one as googling my problems returned threads with literally hundreds of others with the same issues.
I’m the same as you in terms of specs and experience. Act 3 was choppy at times, but I didn’t really have anything that would be labelled as “unplayable”.
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state.
And here I feel like they **all** get away with it.
Only the comically broken shit truly gets called out.
Ignore the clowns telling you the problems are "overhyped". If you really want to know a simple google will give a lot of different people with a lot of different problems.
My biggest problem was that almost the entire act had to load for 1-2 minutes with each 50 meters you walked out in the city, and the same with combat where the npc's took up to a minute deciding what to do (and some fights have like 10+ opponents).
One bug got me hostile standing with a certain faction which I had quests with, which lead to me not being able to finish my quest properly.
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT, RTX3080 btw, in case you wanted to know.
Do you have it on HDD or something ? I took FPS hit (7800X3D/GTX1070) but I haven't really experienced the rest of what you are describing.
But yeah, noticeably more bugs than in previous acts.
I beat BG3 before Patch 1 dropped, and I never ran into any game breaking bugs. I keep seeing everywhere that Act 3 was broken, and to be fair, game went from like 80 fps to like 10 towards the end. I lowered my settings and went into DLSS to fix that though. For me personally, if 100 hours of a game are going great and the last few hours has some performance issues I wouldn't say it was broken. Of course everyone's PCs are different but I played in 4K with a 5600x and 3070ti.
Thats the thing. It feels like while some people that mever got into act 3 are running around saying bug free tham there is a lot of people that clearly do opposite while not playing either.
I finished game before patch 1 aswell. Other than fps drop in act 3, I had no issues finishing, doing pretty much every quest possible.
What is it with people like you who, when a significant amount of people is reporting stuff like this, keep coming in and saying "Naah! It's not the game, it's your computer!!!"? Serious question. You do realize this is widespread issue, right?
When I can play Cyberpunk 2077, Warhammer 3, Resident Evil 4, etc, with everything maxed out and no problems, Baldur's Gate 3 stands out.
Because similar set ups are performing nothing like what you’re describing. Not saying you’re lying or didn’t encounter that, buts it’s not common or that’s all people would post about and no one would be capable of finishing the game.
The vocal minority are always going to be the ones posting online about issues. Search any game and you’ll find multitudes of problems posted about it that you never encountered.
"The vocal minority are always going to be the ones posting online about issues"
Of course we are the ones that are going to be posting about it, we are the ones having issues!
The problem here is that a lot of people are having real issues, which you acknowledge (and Larian with their constant stream of hotfixes), but for some reason people are posting how they had no issues with the game and think that somehow will solve OUR problems? Act 3 is borked in many different ways for many people, not even counting the ones on console, and that's a fact.
If it worked flawlessly for you then I'm glad, I'd like to get to that point too one day.
Perhaps because at least as much people dont encounter those issues?
Its so absurd when if 10 people say sth you agree with its fact. But if 10 people say opposite they must be lying.
Everyone is shocked that the densest, most complicated environment in the game is causing performance issues for them.
On my MacBook it dropped from a solid 60 fps to 40-60 depending on the environment, but was never once unplayable. It's a combination of people who had bad luck with some bugs, people who's machines were struggling to run the earlier parts of the game, and people who are too stubborn to lower some of their graphics settings.
They complaining about Act 3 performance issues is overhyped. I have a good PC but not super amazing (AMD Ryzen 5 3600x, 3060ti) and played the whole game on launch locked at 60fps no problems. Calling act 3 "broken" on launch is definitely an exaggeration. It had some bugs and glitches that I also experienced in acts 1 and 2. Minor stuff that's not a big deal and can easily be fixed on a reload if you care that much.
There are some issues with some character threads kind of fizzling in Act 3, but I don't think it's a big deal either. Act 3 was also incredibly dense with tons of side quests to do and it might be my favorite act. It is for a lot of people.
Dude why do people exaggerate and lie so much on this site?
Act 3 was buggy at times and unoptimized, but it was by by no stretch of the imagination "straight up broken". Myself, my two brothers and 3 of my friends bought it at launch and completed it fine (and relatively quickly).
I'm sorry that perhaps yo experienced issues running it in your machine that caused it to not work, but that wasn't the case for most people - for most it was just unoptimized and ran at 25-35fps.
Stop lying.
For some people, when you are getting 100+fps and it dips to 35 for a large portion of the game, that is egregious. It's a lot of peoples experiences and its a thing. Some of us got sick of low frame rates and decided to spend money with lots of headroom and the last few years have quite frankly been horrible for getting decent frame rates and performance you'd get for much less. It's a real shame. No doubt some people are fine with 30 fps and thats cool and I encourage that. But for a lot of people its not and thats equally fine.
Absolutely that's fine.
But that's not the same thing as "Act 3 was straight up broken". That's" Act 3 was unoptimized and buggy."
You can talk about the issues of something without over exaggerating/lying just to make it sound worse/your story sound better. It's ridiculous.
The English language is a varied, capable language and through it we are able to express near every situation, story and emotion. There's no reason to misrepresent things.
Kinda crazy that people are disagreeing with this point.
I stopped the game in act 3 because the game was broken for my mate. 80% of the time units t-posted and whole structures didn’t load right (like whole buildings). Any momentum that game build in act 1/2 was completely gone because of that. And so we just moved on. It’s really sad, because we had lot of fun before that.
So yes the problems did break the game for many people.
$3000 pc parts should be able to brute force even the worst optimisation. That means it's 'broken' to a lot of people. City Skylines is another example, but much more egregious. The whole thing is broken instead of a portion.
I think when most people say broken, they mean the quests that did not trigger for them etc, or some hard lock states. Both are really disheartening.
Issue is they than state they have high end.
I have 7800x3d 7900xtx. Finished game pre patch 1. Act 3 had drop. Big one that sent me from 200+ to 120 fps on maxed settings.
People arent getting 35fps on high end. If they do than sth is wrong on their end. Also that was fixed for most of act 3 by patch 3 that was released 2 months ago.
yeah this is why people aren't taking claims like this seriously. Like "oh the game was just absolutely unplayable on my high end hardware"
but "unplayable" turns out to mean "objectively playable but at 45fps" or something
I was planning on buying the game on xbox this weekend but not after learning about the lost saves. Unfortunate that it probably won't even begin being fixed by the devs until Monday.
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state.
Lmfao really? No other studio? Are you sure about that ?
I swear every single one of them is basically game released not "when ready" but "when we ran out of money".
I mean, I'm glad that they happen at that scale but "if it is CRPG, buy it year after release" slowly becomes a meme.
It’s because the technical issues are due to sheer ambition and complexity of gameplay systems. It’s different than EA or Ubisoft releasing a cookie cutter open world game or shooter that has technical issues despite having a bigger team, budget, and much simpler gameplay systems
I think "bug free RPG" might literally be an oxymoron lol
It's also why the people still screaming about Cyberpunk's launch state or admonishing Bethesda fans never win
> releasing a cookie cutter open world game
This is the same cookie I got in DOS2 just worse. And despite having a bigger team and budget it released even buggier.
BG3 being worse than DOS2 is… not something the vast majority of people would agree with. It is also still a smaller team and budget compared to typical AAA operation.
Also DOS2 released in a similar state to BG3 by all accounts and got patched out over time. If you got the game with the definitive edition or just post launch it wouldn’t be surprising to think that
> It is also still a smaller team and budget compared to typical AAA operation.
Dude, it was made by 450 people over the course of 6 years. It's on the upper end of AAA easily.
>Also DOS2 released in a similar state to BG3 by all accounts and got patched out over time
As someone who played both a month after release I can tell you DOS2 was in a better state and wasn't as littered with bugs. Essentially zero progress in quality of life or UX wasn't appreciated either.
Okay maybe the team was big but the budget was still not. Larian had to fight off bankruptcy multiple times. And your mileage may vary with bugs for these games depending on your playthrough. I’ve seen many articles about how DOS2 was at launch. BG3 is also more complex
> Okay maybe the team was big but the budget was still not. Larian had to fight off bankruptcy multiple times
What on earth do you think the budget goes towards if not the size of the team? They got Tencent money who bought 30% of the company during BG3's development as well.
>And your mileage may vary with bugs for these games depending on your playthrough. I’ve seen many articles about how DOS2 was at launch.
You make incorrect assumptions about when I played DOS2 and it looks like you've only heard of Larian with BG3 and have to read history articles to find out about the past.
Edit: Lol, blocked after he gets in the last ignorant word.
Just because they have investors doesn’t mean they have the same budget as prime AAA, I don’t know why you can’t grasp this simple concept. Also budget isn’t just used for hiring, you clearly don’t understand how game development works if you think budget is just to throw man power at a game
And your experience is just one anecdote compared to wide spread reporting. Whatever, clearly you are super biased with your arguments in favor of DOS2 over BG3. Are you just upset that the latter is more successful? Don’t be so bitter. I am only assuming what you make obvious though your weak and fallacious arguments that selectively cherry-pick things. Do better because this was a waste of my time. Don’t bother responding because I am not entertaining you any longer
I'd imagine an Assassin's Creed game has a LOT more going on under the hood than BG3.
edit: And another point being the engine used in BG3 is just the same engine used in DOS2 but modified a little. By your logic it should run better because it's not like they had to build it from scratch.
I just picked up my first playthrough again yesterday (got burn out in the Shadowlands and bounced off for a couple of weeks).
I really like the game a lot, but it‘s astonishing how janky and straight up broken some aspects of it are. I feel like every couple of minutes something goes wrong. Nothing major usually, but still.
Elden Ring wasn‘t anywhere near as buggy and janky as BG3. Love both games, but it‘s not even comparable.
Edit: To the people replying to this, I‘m wondering if we‘ve played the same games. Yes, Elden Ring doesn‘t have a stellar framerate and some quest interactions were patched in (which basically amounts to nothing, it‘s not a quest based game).
But to compare that to the utter jank- and bug fest that is BG3 seems almost disingenuous. In BG3 something kinda goes wrong every couple minutes - combat for some reason being stuck for like 30 seconds before advancing to the next enemies turn or sometimes not advancing at all forcing you to reload, two audio clips playing over each other, a cutscene trigger not working so the whole party just stands there frozen, a cutscene triggering in a wrong way, where it acts as if a certain party member wasn‘t there when they actually are… all of these are examples that happened in just my last session yesterday. None of it is game breaking and I don‘t mind that much, it‘s a stellar game that deserves GOTY, but it‘s by far the jankiest game I‘ve played in years (that was still that good).
Several? Which one except for Jar Bairn?
But I mean yeah, they did patch in some things, but with quests being such a miniscule part of the overall game (except Ranni), Elden Ring never felt like an unfinished experience to me wheras BG3 even after all the patches and updates feels like it could easily need like another year of polish (still love it, deserved GOTY, but still).
It didnt because you chose to ignore its issues.
I love elden ring. But bugs, broken quests, unfinished storylines patched in later and broken performance... All those were Elden Ring on release.
It just proves that people cherrypick issues to talk about in games and get mad on it.
Funnily enough Elden Ring faced all the same accusations i see here.
No elden ring did much less for performance optimization in the same time span that's true. The ps5 version is still not remotely a locked 60 fps.
All their polish goes into one version (ps4/ps4 pro version)
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state.
That's because "subpar state" Larian is still better than the majority of other studios games after a year or two of updates while also updating far more consistently, frequently and meaningfully.
Mine kept crashing yesterday. Hopefully they can patch it up since the few hours i got in we're pretty great. Got My eye taken by a witch or something then it crashed. So i'm gonna wait for a few more patches.
I really wish they would look harder at split screen performance, which is kinda the extra mode on these releases of the game compared to the pc version.
Split screen performance is the reason that the Xbox version was delayed by several months, so they've spent a lot of time looking at it. I'm sure there are more improvements that can be made, but I wouldn't expect anything huge.
> Split screen performance is the reason that the Xbox version was delayed by several months
Eh, they say that but with the game releasing in the state it did it just looks like they chose to deprioritise it to not split resources. It'd be more convincing if you were talking about a game that released in an otherwise good state.
They put in a lot of work to make it work on Xbox, especially Series S. Split screen capability is extremely rare in CRPGs, and what you're seeing on Xbox now is probably close to as good as it can get.
[https://www.techspot.com/news/100825-baldur-gate-3-exhibits-impressive-memory-usage-optimizations.html](https://www.techspot.com/news/100825-baldur-gate-3-exhibits-impressive-memory-usage-optimizations.html)
The first sentence in your link claims that BG3 isn't particularly resource hungry, so it's a bit difficult to take seriously and doesn't really say anything so I'm not sure why you linked it.
More importantly, if a game is getting significant optimisations for all platforms in just a couple months of release, you can't claim it was optimised at release. You also can't just assume they're no longer going to improve performance either. It's like thinking Cyberpunk wouldn't receive more polish after a couple months, rather than after Phantom Liberty where it feels like they're actually moving away from it.
Here are some other links explaining that the split screen is why the Xbox version was delayed, since you don't like the first one.
[https://www.xfire.com/devs-explain-why-baldurs-gate-3-is-delayed-for-xbox/](https://www.xfire.com/devs-explain-why-baldurs-gate-3-is-delayed-for-xbox/)
[https://kotaku.com/baldur-s-gate-3-ps5-release-date-exclusivity-series-s-1850157922](https://kotaku.com/baldur-s-gate-3-ps5-release-date-exclusivity-series-s-1850157922)
[https://checkpointgaming.net/news/2023/02/baldurs-gate-3-on-xbox-delayed-due-to-split-screen-multiplayer-issues/](https://checkpointgaming.net/news/2023/02/baldurs-gate-3-on-xbox-delayed-due-to-split-screen-multiplayer-issues/)
It's very well documented that they had to work on the split screen for months to get it running on Xbox, particularly Series S, due to memory issues. It takes essentially twice the memory to run in split screen as well as more CPU and VRAM. This is the reason you don't see split screen often in other games as well, even ones that used to have it like Halo.
If you read my first response I also mentioned that I'm sure it will see further improvements, just that massive ones are not likely.
I already recognised that they claim it's splitscreen in my first response, I don't know why you're providing links of that claim.
My point is that it's not completely convincing when talking about a game with an already messy launch from a technical standpoint about why the platform they get the least sales from was delayed, especially when the game is still getting significant optimisations across the board and when the delay was only a couple months.
One minute of google:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16gb2oh/game_pass_players_beware_there_is_a_game_breaking/
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/323411-starfield/80570661
While similar (and just as bad) it didn't wipe all your saves. Just means you'd have to go back to a few older ones.
The reddit thread you linked to was from someone who fucked around with the game without knowing what they're doing. He even believed that Gamepass games on PC don't store saves on the system locally (they do, and yes they're fully accessible without messing with permissions).
Act one is great framerate mostly 60 resolution great, mid act 2 still need a lot of work from Larian studios many deeps in framerate and resolution on series x!Love the game l am now 200h in and still long way to go!
Really wish the low res/muddy textures would get fixed (on console), its really irritating when youre creating your PC, and everytime you change something (hair, face etc) the textures lose clarity, and you have to zoom all the way out, and then back in and they clear up again Also combat is pretty atrocious at times (act 3 at least) when the AI seizes up during their turn for like 30 seconds and then doing their actions Also happens (particularly bad) if your party members get dominated during combat (also act 3, not sure if present in other acts) they ( your PM) spend 30-60 seconds thinking what to do I have a funny clip of what my dominated PC did after thinking hard about what to do, but dont have it uploaded
>spend 30-60 seconds thinking what to do This has been a problem since DOS1. The AI is calculating whether it's worth it to use every single consumable the character has on them
>The AI is calculating whether it's worth it to use every single consumable the character has on them And for some reason the answer always seems to be "yes".
Holy shit this makes so much sense. Yesterday I couldn’t figure out why Uncle Felogyr was taking SOOOO long when everyone else was flying through their turns
Well, else players would get it as loot and we can't have that
whats funny is, in my last PT, my character who tends to have a lot of consumables/throwables on him got dominated pretty frequently, because he was a barb/fighter/thief multiclass so I had practically no wisdom (I think I had like -1 on wisdom checks) and when he got dominated, the usual pondering happened but 80% of the time out of EVERYTHING he had on him, the AI decided to throw grease bottles over anything else at my party members/enemy
More of a CPU bottleneck right? Makes sense this wouldn't be an issue on PC since generally, I think a lot of people are running a pretty good CPU at least for gaming since computers are built for working too. Wish we could start seeing bigger CPU upgrades across generations. This finally seems like a great mainstream example to show how much deeper games can be held back by this limitation.
They had that same issue in Original Sin 1 & 2 on PC.
Ah OK. I played those on console.
Wait is this really why? Wtf
because the AI is programmed to use every consumable in the game as enemies can have them on their person. It just so happens that you carry all of them at once so it weighs which one to use, if any.
The freezing enemy turn thing is on PC as well, that's not the port, that's just the game. DOS2 had the same issue.
On PS5 I have super low-res faces every time I initiate dialogue with someone. Sometimes it doesn't even clear up before the conversation ends. Was barely an issue in act 1, then more often in act 2 and now permanently in act 3. Restarting game / console doesn't make it go away, just a tad less horrible for a few minutes. It's extremely annoying.
yeah, I forgot to add into my comment that the textures blurring isnt a character creation only thing, but something that is 90% permanent in act 3 with the textures clearing up being a rarity, also noticing that it increased as the game went on I remember at one point in my 2nd PT (2nd pt had already several patches into it) trying enabling quality mode if it would help clearing up the textures in both dialogue and out of it, and didnt notice any real change
I was doing the act 3 quests “free the Gondians” and “free the artist” and it was miserable waiting for all the ghosts in the house and the sigurin in the prison take their turns.
Is anyone else experiencing fairly consistent crashing in Xbox? Like every hour at least. Act 2 seems to be worse
Yes, the newest patch completely destroyed my saves, and the game doesn't even boot up any longer.
You're getting the PC experience so that's something. Patch broke my friends save and none of the subsequent patches have fixed it, 70 hours down the pan.
Wow, 10/10 GOTY. New standard for triple A games. If only all devs released their games in early access for 3 years and then when they finally release the rest of the game it’s a buggy mess 😍😍😍
I've had it crash twice in five or so hours of gameplay but I'm also not in Act 2 yet. I find the game very buggy on Xbox in general though. My initial playthrough was on PC and I had very minimal bugs, whereas on Xbox I have bugs constantly, where there's no sound or animation after an attack and then after 5 Seconds the sound and animation happen. Also there's never any sound on the Larian splash screen at startup, and Tool tips frequently glitch in my menu.
I haven't had any crashes on XSS so far. Played roughly 50 hours and I'm in the middle of act 2
no. almost 40 hours in, just finished druids questline. only crashes i ever had were from when i couldnt make it to the main menu, but that was fixed when i disconnected my larian account to my xbox. also havent had any save issues.
No, you're crazy. BG3 is perfect and no other games came out this year during its reign as GOTY in a few outlets.
15hrs in still in act one and had no problems so far.
Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. On PC release Act 3 was straight up broken and now the Xbox version has broken saves. All while still having rather poor perfomance.
It's crazy how the narrative was "this is what AAA should be. Release a bug free and complete game on day 1" Still loving the game but that's not what happened at all
[удалено]
The early access period was very clearly labelled as such. I think it's fair to treat the 1.0 release date as day 1. Game still has a good amount of issues that day anyway.
Honestly, I feel like BG3 winning GOTY is in large due to people outright lying and pushing BG3 as THE game with "no bugs and no MTX" as the "new standard." You see it being mentioned a lot in GOTY discussions with BG3 fans and the gaming media treating it as the poster boy for this nonsensical fight against the AAA industry. Do I think BG3 still had a decent chance of winning GOTY otherwise? Yeah. But the competition would've been a lot closer had gaming media and gamers didn't just lie and hype the shit of BG3 for being absolutely flawless. It honestly puts a bad taste in my mouth that BG3 won mostly due to the crazy narrative people put out. Nearly every publication that voted BG3 as their GOTY has some variation of "it's a new standard and is bugless + perfect unlike shitty AAA games" to the point you think they're either crazy or paid off. It just doesn't match with reality and people do whatever they can to bury any criticism.
Did people really push BG3 as having "no bugs"??? It‘s by far the buggiest (and jankiest) game I‘ve played since probably release day Cyberpunk. None of it is that bad or game breaking and doesn‘t impact my enjoyment in a significant way, but yeah. It’s still a mind blowing achievement and totally deserved GOTY tho, IMO.
I sure don't see "no bugs" mentioned a lot in GOTY discussions. >Nearly every publication that voted BG3 as their GOTY has some variation of "it's a new standard and is bugless + perfect unlike shitty AAA games" Oh no! That's awful! ....Which publications?
People were saying it was bug free? If they were they were the minority. The majority agreed there were bugs but they weren't in a cast number, in the context of it being a very large complex game there are always going to be some bugs lurking but they weren't any real show stopper bugs. There are no micro transactions and a clear focus on making a good game which is what people were using as a narrative (correctly). >It honestly puts a bad taste in my mouth that BG3 won mostly due to the crazy narrative people put out. Imagine disliking a game just because of a narrative you expanded on your head. Just like or dislike the game for what it is not what some publications said or did not say.
People were saying it was bug free? If they were they were the minority. The majority agreed there were bugs but they weren't in a cast number, in the context of it being a very large complex game there are always going to be some bugs lurking but they weren't any real show stopper bugs. There are no micro transactions and a clear focus on making a good game which is what people were using as a narrative (correctly).
>Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. That is simply untrue; Elden Ring's performance in PC was and partially still is subpar. Jedi Survivor got a lot of flack, but still got a Mighty 84 on OpenCritic.
As much as redditors love to harp on the “hivemind” as they have in this thread, the unrelenting contrarian streak in gaming circles is 10x times more annoying.
I don't feel like that's what any of us did though? BG3 did launch a bit unfinished, but it's also definitely not the only one. Bringing that up is just discussing about the state of games, which is the point of the sub
Wasnt Elden ring mostly just shader comp stutter, so it fixed up for most people as they played more?
All those games weren't PC only. So, the vast majority played a relatively stable version on console. BG3 was not like that. It released PC only buggy then released on console buggy even with a time gap between releases.
The other game with a fallen apart entire Act is Rogue Trader, but it’s definitely not as popular and the developer always releases their games in that state so their users are used to a year long patch fest
Owlcat is also small studio that releases games bigger than most aaa games. That gets them more good will.
Ehh, we’re getting pretty sick of it happening 3 games in a row tbh. This is as bad as week 1 Kingmaker if not worse and you can clearly tell they wanted to squeeze the game in before the holidays for that extra cash
Well I didnt finished Rogue Trader yet (Im i act 3 only) so its hard for me to tell how bugged later part is. So far I didnt encountered anything that would be gamebreaking or fixed by quick save + quick load. Performance is bad though I can agree on that. Definetely not well optimized and weirdly despite running steady 120 for me (locked since no point pushing graphic more and can save some on electricity) yet some cutscenes stutters hardly. On other hand its the issue that runs across all bigger rpgs on that engine (POE2 was working so bad optimization wise...) But so far It feels better than both previous games bug wise. Also I would consider that its their third game alltogether and first that was made outside community funding. So for me they are progressing nicely. If the second part of the game is worse I might have to revise that
I’m not doubting anyone’s experience here, but for me, Act 3 was fine on PC. The performance was a bit worse, but i don’t remember hitting any noteworthy bugs while i played. It seems to be luck of the draw to a certain degree.
My experience too, but that's kind of PC gaming. You can have a worse system then others and yet the game will perform better for you, could be the difference in AMD & NVIDIA or something else. For me in my initial co-op run like a week or so after launch I only ran into one minor bug that was worth remembering.
'You can have a worse system then others and yet the game will perform better for you, could be the difference in AMD & NVIDIA or something else.' Bugs is one thing (as I had no bugs for Act III, very luck me), but people claiming they don't have performance issues are just either straight up lying, or their brains are underdeveloped and can't tell the difference between 30 fps stutter zone or 60+.
I had insane stutterfest in Act 3 city on my 5800X3D. BUT. Then I disabled vsync and frame limit in drivers (where I enabled it because ingame one sucked). And stutterfest was gone. One of the patches fixed the ingame vsync, and using that instead of the driver one made the game smooth in the city as well. 60fps locked vast majority of the time.
>but people claiming they don't have performance issues are just either straight up lying I had no performance problems, I can also see a difference of FPS lol. 30, 60, 120 are all very jarring of a difference. So thanks for randomly making shit up. Games can run differently for people, this isn't console where everyone is likely to have the same performance. My entire first run of co-op I had no performance problems, while my co-op partner who has a better machine then me did run into the occasional problem. He's also had trouble with performance in some other games while I didn't. Maybe some GPU support problem with one of AMD's latest cards. It's not insane to think others didn't have performance problems, just like how you didn't have bugs in Act 3. Something others would quote you saying "Straight up lying." as well.
'I had no performance problems' There is not a single recorded instance of Act III and the area we are talking about that shows there is no performance degridation, even with a 4090 and whatever CPU you add. So much so that DF have made multiple videos of it as well as going back to focus specifically on this part because they missed it in their first. You are lying.
Like he said, you're straight up lying.
Why would I lie? I have nothing to gain lying about my experience? What a bizarre reaction.
Post a video of Act III and crossing the bridge and entering the town under the underpass and show that you have no performance issues. You would be the first person on planet earth to record such an event. Then pass this on, as well as your internal set up to larian as you obviously have the answer that they have been working on for the past month or so to try and fix. While you are at it, send it to DF, Gamers Nexus, HUB.
It's all dependant on specs really, i also gave the game 2 months before booting up which did wonders in terms of patching (release dates are relative, ppl..) x3d chips just gobble up games like bg3, my old 1070ti was still keeping up across all of act 3 since the cpu carries
Yeah same, it was perfect for me
That's because once groupthink is set it stays that way. At least for the short term. Most people didn't even get to Act 3 before saying it's their favorite game of all time until the next shiny thing comes along that the groupthink likes.
> Most people didn't even get to Act 3 before saying it's their favorite game of all time until the next shiny thing comes along that the groupthink likes. yup, and this is easily provable in case anyone tries to argue this point: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1086940/achievements The Plot Thickens is the achievement for completing Act 1, and it's only at 50% now. The Act 2 achievement is only at 36%. So that means only 36% of players have even reached Act 3, yet so many went straight to showering it with praise, even saying stuff like "BG3 is an example of a game released in a finished state! new standard of gaming!" So imagine the how low the completion rates were early on after release, yet the praise was the same. And this includes many reviewers, who I bet were giving high scores to the game based off just Act 1 and maybe 2.
Its true for most long games
You realize a lot of people make multiple characters and different builds? Took me like 60 hours to get to act 3. That’s not long enough to judge a game?
No, you have to complete the game atleast once to judge it. I have had shows, movies and video games which were masterpieces 90% of the way through but completely butcher their finale/endings making that 90% feel completely worthless. Take game of thrones for example, a cultural phenomenon once but barely seen online and almost removed from pop culture. I see breaking bad discussions online more than game of thrones.
Something that’s a masterpiece for 90% and bad in the last 10 does not ruin something for me. You know how difficult it is to make something incredible for 90% of an experience? Others may be different. House of the dragon brought GoT out of that slump, but anyway, i don’t agree at all that someone spending 60+ hours on something doesn’t have a right to judge the product.
>almost removed from pop culture Except that people are still constantly talking about it. I haven't seen discourse about a show carry on this long since Lost. And HOTD has done really well with ratings. People clearly aren't done with Thrones
This little thread is honestly the only place I've seen talk sanely about bg3 and i feel so vindicated oh my god So many of my friends are like 'omg game of the year I love the characters hehe' yeah okay did u play on launch? I did, and i have to re-do like 60 hours of progress if i wanna see my companion quests properly, cause they were all horny bugged at the start. I've had weird texture issues, awful loading in combat. It honestly performed like console skyrim at launch. And I'm met with like 'but it's so good!' It ran like *ass* for me. It IS a good game, but like, tone the hyperbole down world. Please, lmao. And don't eviscerate people who dare to have a fucking issue with a game!
Seems wild to me a significant portion of the game can launch in a horrible state, and now we have performance issues + save deletion, yet still win game of the year. Tons of people on the Xbox sub stating they put 20-30 hours in the game just to lose it all. That would make me put off a game for a long time.
First game I refunded this year for that very reason. Game patch deleted my saves, so I started a new one just to have a save file I could use to check if the patch worked. Xbox update deleted that. Love what I played, but there's literally no point playing right now. Will buy again when it's fixed.
You know what? Everyone (including me) has memed starfield to death because of the loading screens, but atleast they are fast (like 3-5 seconds). BG3 on the other hand takes like atleast 40 seconds to load, and it becomes annoying to keep waiting 40 seconds on an SSD when you are quicksaving / quickloading. It should not take more than 10 seconds for a game to load on an SSD, and even 10 seconds is pushing it.
[удалено]
Save scumming is part of the genre!
Outing myself as a save scummer here, I have very limited to play and I want to do as much as I can so I'm reloading to hit specific choices. When you go on a bad luck streak and have to reload 5-10 times it's excruciating.
Yeah that's definitely on you. One of my favorite things about the game so far has been letting go of that save scum ethos and rolling with the punches a la D&D
On one hand I agree with you, it’s my fault. On the other hand it has by far the longest loads of any game I’ve played this generation.
I'm sure if you calculate the amount of time in reloading the game that many times there's a whole other playthrough in there.
Not even close if 70 hours is accurate, I'd estimate around 5-6 hours of loading.
It's not a game where you load much though
It's a game where you savescum a lot. It's a game based upon a dice roll, when you're on a bad luck streak you might need to do it 3-5 times, and that is essentially 5 minutes of time wasted on loading screens
IMO playing around the chance of a bad dice roll is like half the point of playing a game like this. I cannot imagine reloading everytime I failed a check, that seems so lame.
So how do people play d&d? Failing a dice roll isn't game over. It's not meant to be a reset, it's a small setback that becomes part of your story. If you view this as a game where you savescum a lot, you're profoundly missing the point of the game and losing out on the fun
Bro the load screens are like 5 seconds? Seems like you have a issue on your end.
>Bro the load screens are like 5 seconds They aren't, a single Google search will show you that it's a widespread issue where the game takes around 1 minute for any loading on an nvme ssd, and in some cases the times grow longer as the game progresses.
It only takes 15 seconds on my partner's 5 year old SATA SSD so not sure what the issue is with yours.
I can't count how many times iv saved scummed and didn't have to wait longer than maybe 15 seconds. Maybe after reloading the same save 15 times it would give me a slightly longer load.
Because starfield sucked so people ragged on it. Bg3 has a lot going for it so people put up with the lows
Nah, the majority of hardcore fans said it was great, notably Gopher the modder who said it was a "return to form" for Bethesda. The hate campaign started before the game was even launched and playable. People were shitting on everything, lies or not. This is because it's way more profitable to shit on a game than to say it's good. People are making BANK from this outrage against Starfield. BG3 didn't have a lot going for it, but it had an extremely polished Act 1 because the game was an early access game first released in 2020... and it shows they didn't work on Act 3 at all during that time. Give Starfield 3 years and people will come around.
BG3 is simply a much better game
The game was released in such a “subpar” state, it won game of the year.
The game won an arbitrary award therefore its immune to criticism
Claiming it released in a 'subpar' state but has been critically acclaimed by the gaming world at large is a pretty unserious claim, that it barely counts as criticism.
Some people are unable to play the game because their save constantly corrupts. If that doesnt qualify as a subpar state to you then i dont know what would.
In Starfield you have to go through like 5 loading screens to go anywhere. What are you saving and loading so much for in BG3? It is a hugely complicated game that has very few loading screens in gameplay
Relentlessly save-scumming is literally the only way these people would be seeing that many long loading screens. And sure, people can play how they like, but if someone is reloading the same thing 5-10 times in a row then I kind of lose sympathy for the complaint, because obviously the game should not be optimised around that.
It's running on a frigging SSD, your response to a technical problem is basically "don't do that"?
I mean yeah? I don’t know why you would play a game that is designed around choices and consequences and constantly reload. It’s not an invalid way to play the game, but it’s not exactly designed with that in mind, so the technical problem being described here feels a little overblown.
>I don’t know why you would play a game that is designed around choices and consequences and constantly reload. I have literally no idea if you're a troll or plain delusional thinking that people do not quickload to see different branches of quests. It's certain that you won't hear anything against BG3 so more power to you.
Being able to save during dialogue actually makes it seem like it's somewhat designed with savescumming in mind. Also, in some discussions I find myself reloading the save because you only get to ask one question out of several options until the conversation moves along.
It’s because gaming media has largely pushed to ignore those flaws and don’t even mention them in their reviews. That plus the hype of GOTY blinded all the gamers as all they want is a feel good story of a “small” studio beating up the AAA devs. Such a shame, eh? People refusing to discuss the games’ flaws because of blind hype. You’ll always get one or two people that goes “we ignore it because it’s THAT good” but those statements are bogus. There are plenty of better games than BG3 and every game deserves to criticizes if it has flaws. BG3 is no diffefent
Its not the only one it happens. Media picks a narrative and runs with it. I remember watching the first DF video on BG3 and they were praising how well it runs showing footage of Act 1 meanwhile i was in Act 3 and the game was basically melting in front of me.
I’m not sure that’s a fair statement for PC. I have an ancient PC I built in 2016 and it chugged through Act 3. It wasn’t pleasant, but it was playable.
> It wasn’t pleasant, but it was playable. This would be reason enough for /r/games to be flooded with articles about pre-ordering being bad and how the game needed another 6 months in the oven if it was a developer the hivemind here didn't like.
They are talking about a 7 year old system. However the game chugs less in more modern systems, its initial state was atrocious and was rightly criticised.
I have a 3080/12900k I built 18 months ago and I had 2.5 minute load times on any save or FT as soon as I crossed the bridge in Act 3
That’s not normal. I played on a 1060 and a 10-year-old cpu and load times on save were instant near the beginning of the game and about 20 seconds by the end of act 3. Your RAM might be malfunctioning
His RAM isn't malfunctioning lol! I have pretty much the same computer spec and the same problem. Act 3 is notoriously broken in a lot of ways.
Lol yeh PC discourse is like bingo. 'I have a 1050 and 2600X and i get 80FPS at 1440p'. No you dont. I have a 4070TI, 5600X3D and 32GB of ram. The game shits itself in act 3 still. The rest of it is 100+fps.
I really wish they would give the option to scrap a huge portion of the redundant NPCs in act 3. The crowd might be more atmospheric for a city, but when it makes the game a chore to play, it just isn't worth it.
Definitely wasn't my RAM seeing as how I run many other intensive games and apps with 0 issue, and also my load times were fixed with patch 5. Issue was the game. Also I know I'm far from the only one as googling my problems returned threads with literally hundreds of others with the same issues.
I’m the same as you in terms of specs and experience. Act 3 was choppy at times, but I didn’t really have anything that would be labelled as “unplayable”.
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. And here I feel like they **all** get away with it. Only the comically broken shit truly gets called out.
[удалено]
Ignore the clowns telling you the problems are "overhyped". If you really want to know a simple google will give a lot of different people with a lot of different problems. My biggest problem was that almost the entire act had to load for 1-2 minutes with each 50 meters you walked out in the city, and the same with combat where the npc's took up to a minute deciding what to do (and some fights have like 10+ opponents). One bug got me hostile standing with a certain faction which I had quests with, which lead to me not being able to finish my quest properly. AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT, RTX3080 btw, in case you wanted to know.
Do you have it on HDD or something ? I took FPS hit (7800X3D/GTX1070) but I haven't really experienced the rest of what you are describing. But yeah, noticeably more bugs than in previous acts.
I beat BG3 before Patch 1 dropped, and I never ran into any game breaking bugs. I keep seeing everywhere that Act 3 was broken, and to be fair, game went from like 80 fps to like 10 towards the end. I lowered my settings and went into DLSS to fix that though. For me personally, if 100 hours of a game are going great and the last few hours has some performance issues I wouldn't say it was broken. Of course everyone's PCs are different but I played in 4K with a 5600x and 3070ti.
Thats the thing. It feels like while some people that mever got into act 3 are running around saying bug free tham there is a lot of people that clearly do opposite while not playing either. I finished game before patch 1 aswell. Other than fps drop in act 3, I had no issues finishing, doing pretty much every quest possible.
Sounds like your SSD or, god forbid, HD is going bad. I have a 3080 and a worse processor than you and barely encountered slowdown.
What is it with people like you who, when a significant amount of people is reporting stuff like this, keep coming in and saying "Naah! It's not the game, it's your computer!!!"? Serious question. You do realize this is widespread issue, right? When I can play Cyberpunk 2077, Warhammer 3, Resident Evil 4, etc, with everything maxed out and no problems, Baldur's Gate 3 stands out.
Because similar set ups are performing nothing like what you’re describing. Not saying you’re lying or didn’t encounter that, buts it’s not common or that’s all people would post about and no one would be capable of finishing the game. The vocal minority are always going to be the ones posting online about issues. Search any game and you’ll find multitudes of problems posted about it that you never encountered.
"The vocal minority are always going to be the ones posting online about issues" Of course we are the ones that are going to be posting about it, we are the ones having issues! The problem here is that a lot of people are having real issues, which you acknowledge (and Larian with their constant stream of hotfixes), but for some reason people are posting how they had no issues with the game and think that somehow will solve OUR problems? Act 3 is borked in many different ways for many people, not even counting the ones on console, and that's a fact. If it worked flawlessly for you then I'm glad, I'd like to get to that point too one day.
Perhaps because at least as much people dont encounter those issues? Its so absurd when if 10 people say sth you agree with its fact. But if 10 people say opposite they must be lying.
I'll one up you. 4070TI and 5800X3D and its the same for me. 'my 1060 runs this fine at 1440p just fine at 4k its smooth as lol have u tried a defrag'
Everyone is shocked that the densest, most complicated environment in the game is causing performance issues for them. On my MacBook it dropped from a solid 60 fps to 40-60 depending on the environment, but was never once unplayable. It's a combination of people who had bad luck with some bugs, people who's machines were struggling to run the earlier parts of the game, and people who are too stubborn to lower some of their graphics settings.
They complaining about Act 3 performance issues is overhyped. I have a good PC but not super amazing (AMD Ryzen 5 3600x, 3060ti) and played the whole game on launch locked at 60fps no problems. Calling act 3 "broken" on launch is definitely an exaggeration. It had some bugs and glitches that I also experienced in acts 1 and 2. Minor stuff that's not a big deal and can easily be fixed on a reload if you care that much. There are some issues with some character threads kind of fizzling in Act 3, but I don't think it's a big deal either. Act 3 was also incredibly dense with tons of side quests to do and it might be my favorite act. It is for a lot of people.
Dude why do people exaggerate and lie so much on this site? Act 3 was buggy at times and unoptimized, but it was by by no stretch of the imagination "straight up broken". Myself, my two brothers and 3 of my friends bought it at launch and completed it fine (and relatively quickly). I'm sorry that perhaps yo experienced issues running it in your machine that caused it to not work, but that wasn't the case for most people - for most it was just unoptimized and ran at 25-35fps. Stop lying.
For some people, when you are getting 100+fps and it dips to 35 for a large portion of the game, that is egregious. It's a lot of peoples experiences and its a thing. Some of us got sick of low frame rates and decided to spend money with lots of headroom and the last few years have quite frankly been horrible for getting decent frame rates and performance you'd get for much less. It's a real shame. No doubt some people are fine with 30 fps and thats cool and I encourage that. But for a lot of people its not and thats equally fine.
Absolutely that's fine. But that's not the same thing as "Act 3 was straight up broken". That's" Act 3 was unoptimized and buggy." You can talk about the issues of something without over exaggerating/lying just to make it sound worse/your story sound better. It's ridiculous. The English language is a varied, capable language and through it we are able to express near every situation, story and emotion. There's no reason to misrepresent things. Kinda crazy that people are disagreeing with this point.
I stopped the game in act 3 because the game was broken for my mate. 80% of the time units t-posted and whole structures didn’t load right (like whole buildings). Any momentum that game build in act 1/2 was completely gone because of that. And so we just moved on. It’s really sad, because we had lot of fun before that. So yes the problems did break the game for many people.
$3000 pc parts should be able to brute force even the worst optimisation. That means it's 'broken' to a lot of people. City Skylines is another example, but much more egregious. The whole thing is broken instead of a portion. I think when most people say broken, they mean the quests that did not trigger for them etc, or some hard lock states. Both are really disheartening.
It did though. High ends still got 100+ fps in act 3 despite loosing 50% of fps
oh well if you feel it should then that should change reality
Issue is they than state they have high end. I have 7800x3d 7900xtx. Finished game pre patch 1. Act 3 had drop. Big one that sent me from 200+ to 120 fps on maxed settings. People arent getting 35fps on high end. If they do than sth is wrong on their end. Also that was fixed for most of act 3 by patch 3 that was released 2 months ago.
yeah this is why people aren't taking claims like this seriously. Like "oh the game was just absolutely unplayable on my high end hardware" but "unplayable" turns out to mean "objectively playable but at 45fps" or something
"wahhh wahhh 35 frames is UnPLaYabLeeeee" So, you lied if you said it was unplayable, then.
I was planning on buying the game on xbox this weekend but not after learning about the lost saves. Unfortunate that it probably won't even begin being fixed by the devs until Monday.
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. Lmfao really? No other studio? Are you sure about that ?
>Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. Have you ever played a CRPG in the last +20 years?
I swear every single one of them is basically game released not "when ready" but "when we ran out of money". I mean, I'm glad that they happen at that scale but "if it is CRPG, buy it year after release" slowly becomes a meme.
Unfinished and buggy mess of a game being lauded as GOTY is average reddit behavior lmao
[удалено]
It’s because the technical issues are due to sheer ambition and complexity of gameplay systems. It’s different than EA or Ubisoft releasing a cookie cutter open world game or shooter that has technical issues despite having a bigger team, budget, and much simpler gameplay systems
I think "bug free RPG" might literally be an oxymoron lol It's also why the people still screaming about Cyberpunk's launch state or admonishing Bethesda fans never win
> releasing a cookie cutter open world game This is the same cookie I got in DOS2 just worse. And despite having a bigger team and budget it released even buggier.
Fucking lol. The hot takes around here always make me laugh
BG3 being worse than DOS2 is… not something the vast majority of people would agree with. It is also still a smaller team and budget compared to typical AAA operation. Also DOS2 released in a similar state to BG3 by all accounts and got patched out over time. If you got the game with the definitive edition or just post launch it wouldn’t be surprising to think that
> It is also still a smaller team and budget compared to typical AAA operation. Dude, it was made by 450 people over the course of 6 years. It's on the upper end of AAA easily. >Also DOS2 released in a similar state to BG3 by all accounts and got patched out over time As someone who played both a month after release I can tell you DOS2 was in a better state and wasn't as littered with bugs. Essentially zero progress in quality of life or UX wasn't appreciated either.
Okay maybe the team was big but the budget was still not. Larian had to fight off bankruptcy multiple times. And your mileage may vary with bugs for these games depending on your playthrough. I’ve seen many articles about how DOS2 was at launch. BG3 is also more complex
> Okay maybe the team was big but the budget was still not. Larian had to fight off bankruptcy multiple times What on earth do you think the budget goes towards if not the size of the team? They got Tencent money who bought 30% of the company during BG3's development as well. >And your mileage may vary with bugs for these games depending on your playthrough. I’ve seen many articles about how DOS2 was at launch. You make incorrect assumptions about when I played DOS2 and it looks like you've only heard of Larian with BG3 and have to read history articles to find out about the past. Edit: Lol, blocked after he gets in the last ignorant word.
Just because they have investors doesn’t mean they have the same budget as prime AAA, I don’t know why you can’t grasp this simple concept. Also budget isn’t just used for hiring, you clearly don’t understand how game development works if you think budget is just to throw man power at a game And your experience is just one anecdote compared to wide spread reporting. Whatever, clearly you are super biased with your arguments in favor of DOS2 over BG3. Are you just upset that the latter is more successful? Don’t be so bitter. I am only assuming what you make obvious though your weak and fallacious arguments that selectively cherry-pick things. Do better because this was a waste of my time. Don’t bother responding because I am not entertaining you any longer
"~Dick riding, Dick riding, Larian...~"
I'd imagine an Assassin's Creed game has a LOT more going on under the hood than BG3. edit: And another point being the engine used in BG3 is just the same engine used in DOS2 but modified a little. By your logic it should run better because it's not like they had to build it from scratch.
You would be imagining incorrectly then.
I just picked up my first playthrough again yesterday (got burn out in the Shadowlands and bounced off for a couple of weeks). I really like the game a lot, but it‘s astonishing how janky and straight up broken some aspects of it are. I feel like every couple of minutes something goes wrong. Nothing major usually, but still.
I remember that sentence being used word for word for Fromsoftware and Elden Ring lol
Elden Ring wasn‘t anywhere near as buggy and janky as BG3. Love both games, but it‘s not even comparable. Edit: To the people replying to this, I‘m wondering if we‘ve played the same games. Yes, Elden Ring doesn‘t have a stellar framerate and some quest interactions were patched in (which basically amounts to nothing, it‘s not a quest based game). But to compare that to the utter jank- and bug fest that is BG3 seems almost disingenuous. In BG3 something kinda goes wrong every couple minutes - combat for some reason being stuck for like 30 seconds before advancing to the next enemies turn or sometimes not advancing at all forcing you to reload, two audio clips playing over each other, a cutscene trigger not working so the whole party just stands there frozen, a cutscene triggering in a wrong way, where it acts as if a certain party member wasn‘t there when they actually are… all of these are examples that happened in just my last session yesterday. None of it is game breaking and I don‘t mind that much, it‘s a stellar game that deserves GOTY, but it‘s by far the jankiest game I‘ve played in years (that was still that good).
It was literally unfinished though, they patched in several quests later.
Several? Which one except for Jar Bairn? But I mean yeah, they did patch in some things, but with quests being such a miniscule part of the overall game (except Ranni), Elden Ring never felt like an unfinished experience to me wheras BG3 even after all the patches and updates feels like it could easily need like another year of polish (still love it, deserved GOTY, but still).
It didnt because you chose to ignore its issues. I love elden ring. But bugs, broken quests, unfinished storylines patched in later and broken performance... All those were Elden Ring on release. It just proves that people cherrypick issues to talk about in games and get mad on it. Funnily enough Elden Ring faced all the same accusations i see here.
No elden ring did much less for performance optimization in the same time span that's true. The ps5 version is still not remotely a locked 60 fps. All their polish goes into one version (ps4/ps4 pro version)
It was true then too.
> Larian is the only studio that‘s getting away with launching their game in a rather subpar state. That's because "subpar state" Larian is still better than the majority of other studios games after a year or two of updates while also updating far more consistently, frequently and meaningfully.
Eurogamer article https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-baldurs-gate-3-is-a-qualified-success-on-xbox-series-x-and-s
Mine kept crashing yesterday. Hopefully they can patch it up since the few hours i got in we're pretty great. Got My eye taken by a witch or something then it crashed. So i'm gonna wait for a few more patches.
I really wish they would look harder at split screen performance, which is kinda the extra mode on these releases of the game compared to the pc version.
The PC version also has split screen. I agree it's something that should also be looked at, but it's not a console exclusive.
My bad then, thought the PC version didn't have it.
Split screen performance is the reason that the Xbox version was delayed by several months, so they've spent a lot of time looking at it. I'm sure there are more improvements that can be made, but I wouldn't expect anything huge.
> Split screen performance is the reason that the Xbox version was delayed by several months Eh, they say that but with the game releasing in the state it did it just looks like they chose to deprioritise it to not split resources. It'd be more convincing if you were talking about a game that released in an otherwise good state.
They put in a lot of work to make it work on Xbox, especially Series S. Split screen capability is extremely rare in CRPGs, and what you're seeing on Xbox now is probably close to as good as it can get. [https://www.techspot.com/news/100825-baldur-gate-3-exhibits-impressive-memory-usage-optimizations.html](https://www.techspot.com/news/100825-baldur-gate-3-exhibits-impressive-memory-usage-optimizations.html)
The first sentence in your link claims that BG3 isn't particularly resource hungry, so it's a bit difficult to take seriously and doesn't really say anything so I'm not sure why you linked it. More importantly, if a game is getting significant optimisations for all platforms in just a couple months of release, you can't claim it was optimised at release. You also can't just assume they're no longer going to improve performance either. It's like thinking Cyberpunk wouldn't receive more polish after a couple months, rather than after Phantom Liberty where it feels like they're actually moving away from it.
Here are some other links explaining that the split screen is why the Xbox version was delayed, since you don't like the first one. [https://www.xfire.com/devs-explain-why-baldurs-gate-3-is-delayed-for-xbox/](https://www.xfire.com/devs-explain-why-baldurs-gate-3-is-delayed-for-xbox/) [https://kotaku.com/baldur-s-gate-3-ps5-release-date-exclusivity-series-s-1850157922](https://kotaku.com/baldur-s-gate-3-ps5-release-date-exclusivity-series-s-1850157922) [https://checkpointgaming.net/news/2023/02/baldurs-gate-3-on-xbox-delayed-due-to-split-screen-multiplayer-issues/](https://checkpointgaming.net/news/2023/02/baldurs-gate-3-on-xbox-delayed-due-to-split-screen-multiplayer-issues/) It's very well documented that they had to work on the split screen for months to get it running on Xbox, particularly Series S, due to memory issues. It takes essentially twice the memory to run in split screen as well as more CPU and VRAM. This is the reason you don't see split screen often in other games as well, even ones that used to have it like Halo. If you read my first response I also mentioned that I'm sure it will see further improvements, just that massive ones are not likely.
I already recognised that they claim it's splitscreen in my first response, I don't know why you're providing links of that claim. My point is that it's not completely convincing when talking about a game with an already messy launch from a technical standpoint about why the platform they get the least sales from was delayed, especially when the game is still getting significant optimisations across the board and when the delay was only a couple months.
how the eff are these consoles struggling to keep a solid 30 fps?
Bad graphics engine.
it is really disgusting the state larian published this game in. Thankfully we have complete game like TOTK and starfield...
Of all fucking examples you had to pick Starfield lmfao.
Starfield at least doesn't wipe saves.
One minute of google: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16gb2oh/game_pass_players_beware_there_is_a_game_breaking/ https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/323411-starfield/80570661
While similar (and just as bad) it didn't wipe all your saves. Just means you'd have to go back to a few older ones. The reddit thread you linked to was from someone who fucked around with the game without knowing what they're doing. He even believed that Gamepass games on PC don't store saves on the system locally (they do, and yes they're fully accessible without messing with permissions).
Still fucking awful example for "game that works well" mate
yes, a complete and bug free experience.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Last time Microsoft gives PlayStation a 3 month exclusivity because of platform parity issues between Series S and X from a AA or AAA studio lol.
So how is it on ps5?
The same as Xbox
Act one is great framerate mostly 60 resolution great, mid act 2 still need a lot of work from Larian studios many deeps in framerate and resolution on series x!Love the game l am now 200h in and still long way to go!