Red's Read On Baldur's Gate 3 | MMORPG.com

System

Red's Read On Baldur's Gate 3 | MMORPG.com

Baldur's Gate 3 has released to Early Access with little fanfare, but Red Thomas steps up to take the title on so that it might not go quietly into the night. Red's thoughts on Early Access with respect to RPGs and how Baldur's Gate 3 compares to other available titles that are skipping theaters and releasing direct to readers.

Read the full story here

xpsync

Never been a big fan of isometric and was in around Neverwinter Nights when i played a few, and haven't really tapped back into these heavy duty rpg type worlds since.

Agree, i thought BG3 had an EA for the complete game as like a pre-order thing while they fine tune for release, and the complete game was going to drop on the 6th of October.

Imagine an EA for morrowind, you get "some" land to explore now, more coming later, it is an experience as a complete game.

Anyone in EA will never get the experience we will all get once it's released, however the peeps in EA probably play the game like i never will, as in to death.

Short story Short, i picked up DOS2 and i had no clue whatsoever with what i was walking into, i could not have been more naive.

As a great example after 22 hours in, i completely started over the other night as i felt like i now have a good "vague" idea of it all.

After 4 hours last night, i do realize, vague is correct, still learning chit, still researching, i mean every other minute gotta look something else up, get a feel for this, and for that, what are other peoples theories, tactics, it's bottomless.

DOS2 is utterly f'ing amazing, the depth, the options, this is rpg.

Love this game, i don't seem to be bothered by isometric as i once was either, being realistic though, it's not going to take over mmorpg's for me, or dominate my time when i'm in deep with an mmorpg.

atm though being so new, so much to learn, so much challenge, great story, amazing world, it is dominating all my time, extenuating circumstances ofc.

When pre-patch hits I'll be focusing on that obv, and eventually return to a balance of wow r/c and swg:l but as a sideline game, i think i just found something which will finally fit.

Not saying i'll never play the Mafia 1 DE i've only waited forever for, or Yakuza 0 which i could not be more enamored with, or the off the charts exceptional Red Dead on the PC, it's just they are all things i've always played to death.

Lately i keep trying to make them click or see if they will and yeah, no, they don't. I know they will click again someday and will play them, but been looking for something as a side game, you know for those times you just want a break from what you're playing, "all the time" and this is it.

Scot

"Right off the bat, I think the idea of RPGs releasing into Early Access is ridiculous and I’m upset that it’s even on the table."

Well at least Red gets it, if you play early access especially with an RPG it spoils the game for launch. That goes for any game with a lot of story really, and as a last point why would you buy something before it launches anyway? Why have a below par experience of what is shaping up into a great game?

Sovrath

xpsync said:

Imagine an EA for morrowind, you get "some" land to explore now, more coming later, it is an experience as a complete game.

This goes back to something been saying, players are their own worst enemies. They really are. They can't seem to get out of their own way.

If buying a game and essentially (according to the article) having the story ruined is a thing, then you wouldn't buy it.

If a company offers you 25% of a game with bugs and they say "help us test it" and that isn't to your liking, you wouldn't buy it.

If an experience is going to be ruined by a buggy preview then definitely don't buy it.

If none of that matters to you then one can do their due diligence, see what the game is about and make that call.

Larian has said that what they are offering is Act 1, they claim it's fun (subjective) and they claim it "feels" complete.

So I read that to mean a person could get through act 1 and for the most part get the gist of what Act 1 is about.

And then a player can make a decision based on all of the above.

It's ok to sell 10% of morrowind as long as the players are clear about what they are getting and whether or not there's any worth to that experience.

Scot

Sovrath said:

xpsync said:

Imagine an EA for morrowind, you get "some" land to explore now, more coming later, it is an experience as a complete game.

This goes back to something been saying, players are their own worst enemies. They really are. They can't seem to get out of their own way.

If buying a game and essentially (according to the article) having the story ruined is a thing, then you wouldn't buy it.

If a company offers you 25% of a game with bugs and they say "help us test it" and that isn't to your liking, you wouldn't buy it.

If an experience is going to be ruined by a buggy preview then definitely don't buy it.

If none of that matters to you then one can do their due diligence, see what the game is about and make that call.

Larian has said that what they are offering is Act 1, they claim it's fun (subjective) and they claim it "feels" complete.

So I read that to mean a person could get through act 1 and for the most part get the gist of what Act 1 is about.

And then a player can make a decision based on all of the above.

It's ok to sell 10% of morrowind as long as the players are clear about what they are getting and whether or not there's any worth to that experience.

I don't need to play the whole of Act 1 to work out if I am going to buy a game; check out the reviews, check out the graphics on You Tube and read some Steam negatives as they may spot things that you really don't like. That takes about five to ten minutes.

On the other hand play a buggy Act 1 and some time in the future play Act 2.* Not sure how much of Act 1 you will remember by then but its not like we play these games for story or character immersion is it?! PC Gamer recon you will have to wait one to two years for it to launch.

*note: I may have a crossed wire here because you can't play Act 1 for free, you are paying for the whole thing as far as I know.

Like another poster said the only reason to get it now is if you get some sense of satisfaction being an early adopter and want to take part in the media hype about the game, maybe by streaming or You Tube review.

For actual players this is the most cockamamie method of playing I have ever encountered.

Sovrath

Scot said:

I don't need to play the whole of Act 1 to work out if I am going to buy a game; check out the reviews, check out the graphics on You Tube and read some Steam negatives as they may spot things that you really don't like. That takes about five to ten minutes.

On the other hand play a buggy Act 1 and some time in the future play Act 2.* Not sure how much of Act 1 you will remember by then but its not like we play these games for story or character immersion is it?! PC Gamer recon you will have to wait one to two years for it to launch.

*note: I may have a crossed wire here because you can't play Act 1 for free, you are paying for the whole thing as far as I know.

Like another poster said the only reason to get it now is if you get some sense of satisfaction being an early adopter and want to take part in the media hype about the game, maybe by streaming or You Tube review.

For actual players this is the most cockamamie method of playing I have ever encountered.

No you don't need to play the whole of an Act. But that's not why you would be buying it. Sure, there are people who want to be "first" but their experience is on them.

The "idea" (other than making more money for the developers) is to test and to offer feedback.

From where I sit that's the only reason to buy this. The problem is that people are looking at this as buying a complete game or "getting their money's worth" as far as game play. this isn't really a "game play" experience.

Mendel

A great story line but the experience of the game being marred by bugs and faults isn't a game for me.  Paying full price (something I rarely do) for an incomplete experience is totally ludicrous.

If that $60 is really burning such a hole in your pocket, you probably need to reevaluate your life's priorities.  Gaming is great and all when you're on top, but if your personal fortunes change, the reality of where gaming falls in your personal priority list will hit, and hit hard.  Food or RPG isn't a choice I'd wish on anyone.

Sovrath

Mendel said:

A great story line but the experience of the game being marred by bugs and faults isn't a game for me.  Paying full price (something I rarely do) for an incomplete experience is totally ludicrous.

If that $60 is really burning such a hole in your pocket, you probably need to reevaluate your life's priorities.  Gaming is great and all when you're on top, but if your personal fortunes change, the reality of where gaming falls in your personal priority list will hit, and hit hard.  Food or RPG isn't a choice I'd wish on anyone.

Um I have friends who would say if you are buying video games you should reevaluate your priorities so that doesn't really cut it.

You aren't buy a game experience. Period. If people think they are buying "a game experience" then maybe they need to reevaluate where they have made their mistakes in life because they clearly aren't clear.

xpsync

@ most of above

Lots of criticism comes form how many of us feel personally about things.

I'm feeling the difference here is that it's a heavy story driven focused tale, where other games mentioned are mmorpg's.

Also i don't want to fault anyone in early access, speaking for myself, if isometric games were my world, then yeah why not.

What i can tell from diving into DOS2, is that the replayability seems to be endless, and the people in the EA play the game in ways i never will.

They'll re-roll, try tons of different builds, push it to the limits, find out how far they can push it, finish it multiple times and playing the first act is only a baby step in how they will play it overall.

Where me personally, my only goal is to finish out the story and most likely pick up BG3 someday as a replacement for my completed DOS2.

So yeah i'm not for EA, for what i want out of the game, EA is a really bad option, where a devotee it would be awesome.

To nutshell it, I want a one off great story fun adventure experience, where EA players, well, they want to make the game their bitch!

sumdumguy1

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? BG3 will likely get a release in 2021 or 2022, not 2030. On top of that the EA period for BG3 is public, not under an NDA. If anything this sort of transparency should help those who haven't purchased yet make more informed decisions.

On top of all that, the deal is clear; $60 for immediate access to an unfinished game. Full access to the complete game is provided on release.

That is in stark contrast to crowd-funded games like Ashes, Crowfall, CU, and others. One of the few, if not only, EA MMORPG that has offered full access since the beginning is Project Gorgon. And they even offered free access for years.

So excuse me if I find the criticism way off base and inconsistent with the message about other games by Red and the site in general. I feel like some titles are cherry picked as darlings and given a big pass, while others are thrown under the bus just for the sake of clicks and views and maybe some much needed community PR love. No big deal really, but I had to get that off my chest.

This right here, insightful and brings up the hypocritical angle which I wondered about myself.  It begs for the questions about there being an agenda of sorts in play.  You know, money doesn't talk, it screams.

theprophet85

Refunded BG3 within an hour. It is basically a re-skinned Divinity Original Sin. I loved DOS1/2, but this is not BG3.

Sandmanjw

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? BG3 will likely get a release in 2021 or 2022, not 2030. On top of that the EA period for BG3 is public, not under an NDA. If anything this sort of transparency should help those who haven't purchased yet make more informed decisions.

On top of all that, the deal is clear; $60 for immediate access to an unfinished game. Full access to the complete game is provided on release.

That is in stark contrast to crowd-funded games like Ashes, Crowfall, CU, and others. One of the few, if not only, EA MMORPG that has offered full access since the beginning is Project Gorgon. And they even offered free access for years.

So excuse me if I find the criticism way off base and inconsistent with the message about other games by Red and the site in general. I feel like some titles are cherry picked as darlings and given a big pass, while others are thrown under the bus just for the sake of clicks and views and maybe some much needed community PR love. No big deal really, but I had to get that off my chest.

Absolutely, IMO, Red is first a gamer that writes opinions not so much straight news.

I always read his stuff as such, and find most of his "reads" to be from a gamers point of view rather than a columnists or reporters drivel.

Look at his stuff as you would your other gaming friends...not all gonna agree or like what i do, why we have all this gacha,loot box, and EA crap that i personally despise now. Enough buyers seem to tolerate it that it makes the games cash.

I still understand your very valid point...but i guess i give Red a small pass in my takes on what he writes. I take most of his stuff as a gamers opinion and not some companies byline.

And on this game agree, buy it later when it is really released. Dev's are using gamers cash to develop titles under EA...and it is step down the line of not taking responsibility for the games they make and sell IMO.

Pushing the cost and risk off to your customers...not something people would ever tolerate in anything but gaming i think. We gamers are pretty pathetic:P

xpsync

Meh, maybe many of us are tired of everything having to be, kickstart, crowdfund, loot box, early access, pre-order, day one dlc, whatever happened to here's a completed game! all done, have fun.

Iselin

xpsync said:

Meh, maybe many of us are tired of everything having to be, kickstart, crowdfund, loot box, early access, pre-order, day one dlc, whatever happened to here's a completed game! all done, have fun.

Whatever happened to it? Here you go and see for yourself

https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/491274/star-wars-squadrons-will-not-have-any-post-launch-content-mmorpg-com#latest

Red_Thomas

Scot said:

"Right off the bat, I think the idea of RPGs releasing into Early Access is ridiculous and I’m upset that it’s even on the table."



Well at least Red gets it, if you play early access especially with an RPG it spoils the game for launch. That goes for any game with a lot of story really, and as a last point why would you buy something before it launches anyway? Why have a below par experience of what is shaping up into a great game?

It started a long time ago, but I think it's the survival genre that's really pushed the trend to where it is now, and it's also why I have to give serious respect to AGS for how they're handling New World. Basically, big studios didn't want to touch survival games, so indie took off with it. The bar is lower with indie and they take too long to get to market in this economy, so I think indie survival games trained consumers to accept EA titles.

Now, survival is a serious genre and bigs are starting to try to put together games targeting it and they're taking advantage of that same low bar. There are some larger companies mixed in with the survival crowd that have really not even bothered. Then, there are a lot of indies still there, too.

The main point is that it's bled into other genres, which I don't really mind. I don't care if MMOs do it or if other games like FPSs or RTSs do it, that's fine. With RPGs, it's just not acceptable, though.

Utinni

I'd bet that the early access idea was from WotC.

Red_Thomas

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? BG3 will likely get a release in 2021 or 2022, not 2030. On top of that the EA period for BG3 is public, not under an NDA. If anything this sort of transparency should help those who haven't purchased yet make more informed decisions.

On top of all that, the deal is clear; $60 for immediate access to an unfinished game. Full access to the complete game is provided on release.

That is in stark contrast to crowd-funded games like Ashes, Crowfall, CU, and others. One of the few, if not only, EA MMORPG that has offered full access since the beginning is Project Gorgon. And they even offered free access for years.

So excuse me if I find the criticism way off base and inconsistent with the message about other games by Red and the site in general. I feel like some titles are cherry picked as darlings and given a big pass, while others are thrown under the bus just for the sake of clicks and views and maybe some much needed community PR love. No big deal really, but I had to get that off my chest.

That's because you're taking criticism out of context. There's a massive difference between this case and the others. That being content. The content of an MMO is derived from player interaction. That's constantly renewed and isn't something that's used up. The Crowfall experience of last year is one thing, and the experience of next year will be something else entirely because the playerbase will have changed, the social structures in the game will have changed, and none of it is finite. I buy Crowfall tomorrow and experience what someone last year experienced, because it's an MMO, and specifically one that's PvP-centric. To make that an ever worse example, Crowfall's very design is to have a series of temporary game servers with their own unique rulesets and experiences. In effect, they're releasing a new game every time they start a new server.

So, there might just be some small amount of difference in that and a single-player RPG that has a definite story written by developers. Thus, my feeling that EA is not appropriate for an RPG where it would be appropriate for an MMO.

Red_Thomas

xpsync said:

@ most of above



Lots of criticism comes form how many of us feel personally about things.



I'm feeling the difference here is that it's a heavy story driven focused tale, where other games mentioned are mmorpg's.

...

This guy gets it.

Red_Thomas

sumdumguy1 said:

This right here, insightful and brings up the hypocritical angle which I wondered about myself.  It begs for the questions about there being an agenda of sorts in play.  You know, money doesn't talk, it screams.

I love this. How much money do you think these studios have in their marketing budget that they can go around just paying people for reviews?

OMG, someone likes something you don't, or visa versa! Clearly paid off.

....or.... Just going to throw this out there.... maybe I just have an opinion. I mean I literally state right there in the article WHY it's a problem here, and there's an implication in that as to why it's not a problem other times. If you're quitting MMOs because you've talked with all the NPCs, then I think you might be missing the intended gameloop a little.

Warlyx

had tons of issues with this EA , and i knew that was coming but ugh.

playing on ultra (tried lowering setting but fps doesnt gets better)

played on vulkan and fps drops to 5fps after battles , low textures on cutscenes

tried on DX11 same thing i open the game and goes smooth and after battle fps drops, dialogues are good but the dialogue options take x3 the time that the are supposed ...

camera doesnt follow character , i learned a trick start dialogue with companion to fix it.

the gameplay looks solid and fun (divinity original sin 2.5) , but gonna wait until all the issues are fixed...because atm is a nightmare to play like that.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Slapshot1188

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? 

It's subjective of course, but using your examples:  I got Divinity:OS2 for $27.  Crowfall Kickstarter started at $34 and you would have had full access for years.  Camelot Unchained was $25.

If D:OS2 or CF or CU Kickstarted at full price for the game I would have done the same thing I am doing with BG3... wait for a sale.

Red seems to have a different take in that it's bad to release an incomplete RPG... which I KIND of can agree with, but its really no worse than other companies releasing things like Life is Strange Episode 1,2,3,4,5...

So to me it's more of a value proposition.   They set my expectations with D:OS and D:OS2 and I haven't seen a reason to buy in at full price, but if others do, more power to em.  I'll catch up when the do the inevitable Steam Sales prior to the game being complete.

YashaX

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? BG3 will likely get a release in 2021 or 2022, not 2030. On top of that the EA period for BG3 is public, not under an NDA. If anything this sort of transparency should help those who haven't purchased yet make more informed decisions.

On top of all that, the deal is clear; $60 for immediate access to an unfinished game. Full access to the complete game is provided on release.

That is in stark contrast to crowd-funded games like Ashes, Crowfall, CU, and others. One of the few, if not only, EA MMORPG that has offered full access since the beginning is Project Gorgon. And they even offered free access for years.

So excuse me if I find the criticism way off base and inconsistent with the message about other games by Red and the site in general. I feel like some titles are cherry picked as darlings and given a big pass, while others are thrown under the bus just for the sake of clicks and views and maybe some much needed community PR love. No big deal really, but I had to get that off my chest.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The hypocrisy is just $%$E@ astounding. 

lahnmir

YashaX said:

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

Where was the outrage when Larian did this for Divinity:OS2? Why is it still good for Crowfall to do this going on 7 years or more after first starting development? BG3 will likely get a release in 2021 or 2022, not 2030. On top of that the EA period for BG3 is public, not under an NDA. If anything this sort of transparency should help those who haven't purchased yet make more informed decisions.

On top of all that, the deal is clear; $60 for immediate access to an unfinished game. Full access to the complete game is provided on release.

That is in stark contrast to crowd-funded games like Ashes, Crowfall, CU, and others. One of the few, if not only, EA MMORPG that has offered full access since the beginning is Project Gorgon. And they even offered free access for years.

So excuse me if I find the criticism way off base and inconsistent with the message about other games by Red and the site in general. I feel like some titles are cherry picked as darlings and given a big pass, while others are thrown under the bus just for the sake of clicks and views and maybe some much needed community PR love. No big deal really, but I had to get that off my chest.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The hypocrisy is just $%$E@ astounding. 

I would also like to add that we are talking about a well respected, fan favourite studio that has been on the absolute top of their game for many years. Not some early startup desperately needing to get money or some shovelware factory pumping out crap. They absolutely didn’t have to do this for any other reason then giving their many fans an early taste.

Some of the criticism here is so backwards it makes my head hurt. I bet many spent more then 60 on games like CF, SC, CoE etc. with not a single line of code in sight, let alone the quality and reputation of Larian and were totally cool with that.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Scot

Torval said:

Something confuses me. Why is EA for Baldur's Gate 3 bad, but for years Red has been pumping EA titles in his articles. Why is it good for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, and many others, who have asked players for hundreds or thousands of dollars, but now it's bad for Larian to do it for BG3?

(He goes on a bit)

I am not sure you can compare the funding of early access RPG's with crowd funded MMORPG's, they are simply not being developed the same way. I cannot see why being critical of one funding method means you must be critical of another. Should everyone who has concerns about F2P also have concerns about about casino gameplay?

Why now? Why not call Early Access out earlier? Well I think some people are just waking up to this, which is quite natural really. Or maybe Red changed his mind, if politicians can do that I guess even gaming journalists should be allowed to?

To borrow a phrase from our mate Lahnmir we are talking about a "fan favourite studio" here and I think that's why people are defending this. I find it hard to understand why posters cannot separate the issue from the studio, if this were an Electronic Arts game would you all be coming on here to defend the early access?

Talking of which I hope posters realise that soon nearly every AAA game will have an early access stage. Just like they all have pre-order, special editions and so on. Gaming is an industry that has shown that every new form of dubious funding spreads to most gaming companies within a couple of years.

Celcius

Nothing wrong with releasing a game into early access no matter what the genre is, especially with a proven track record like Larian. It is when you use early access for years that it is a problem. Early access games can be, you know, ignored, if you want to play the full release. Nothing wrong with waiting for a sale either, but I would not get your hopes up for a sale for more then maybe 10% off by the time it releases. You will probably be waiting until about 3-4 months after release. (Which will be a year or longer from now)