Meanwhile BG3 just has one district of Baldurs Gate available and it’s so detailed and jam packed with NPCs that it’s unstable for many people’s computers.
I mean Bethesda’s games are so full of bugs AND barren that I don’t see how this can be an actual talking point. BG3 is running just fine on my 6 year old pc
I ran it with much worse hardware. It isn’t the power of the hardware that was the issue (unless you didn’t try turning settings down). Something else must have caused the crash besides power. Maybe not enough RAM or too slow of a CPU or potentially maybe loading from an HDD and it was too slow? It could also just be a bug with the specific hardware configuration in that computer.
Coop in BG3 is fairly buggy (split screen specifically) , I played with my wife close to launch and we ran into all sorts of performance issues and bugs on a high end PC. Still a great game though, but you can tell that split screen didn’t get a lot of love during development
I’m a RTX 2080 user and everything is ok here. I’ve had more crashes on starfield than bg3 and have had to revert to earlier saves due to broken mechanics which I’m used to in the Bethesda style of things
I love BG3. It’s a very different game from Skyrim though. After all, that city is basically a third of the game. Plus BG3 has all kinds of travel and camera limitations that Skyrim doesn’t. That’s what lets them make the city truly seem like a sprawling city.
By comparison, Skyrim basically lets you go everywhere and it has a far larger map. Skyrim chose the “big as an ocean, shallow as a puddle” approach when it comes to map design. Though NPCs are actually deeper than BG3. Skyrim NPCs have lifes, while BG3 is frozen in a moment.
I don’t know Skyrim wasn’t that shallow. It’s not like most of its locations are window dressing like in an assassin’s creed game. Almost the entire map had somewhat meaningful encounters and mini story arcs
Yeah you’re right. I do think that in comparison to BG3 it’s very shallow, but in a vacuum or in comparison to many other games it’s actually quite deep
Meanwhile BG3 just has one district of Baldurs Gate available and it’s so detailed and jam packed with NPCs that it’s unstable for many people’s computers.
I mean Bethesda’s games are so full of bugs AND barren that I don’t see how this can be an actual talking point. BG3 is running just fine on my 6 year old pc
I’m not sure it’s fair to compare Skyrim and BG3. There was like 12 years of development between them, and quite a bit changed in that 12 years.
Starfield is just a reskinned Skyrim
the original meme is about skyrim, and no one mentioned starfield.
This is true, sorry lol
I had to move my co-op save to my wife’s PC to continue playing in Act 3. Three year old PC with a 3070. She would crash loading into the Lower City.
I ran it with much worse hardware. It isn’t the power of the hardware that was the issue (unless you didn’t try turning settings down). Something else must have caused the crash besides power. Maybe not enough RAM or too slow of a CPU or potentially maybe loading from an HDD and it was too slow? It could also just be a bug with the specific hardware configuration in that computer.
It’s a bug within BG3 while multi-player. This is the fix: host on the crashing side.
You playing at 4k res or something? 3070 is more than powerful enough for 1440p.
Coop in BG3 is fairly buggy (split screen specifically) , I played with my wife close to launch and we ran into all sorts of performance issues and bugs on a high end PC. Still a great game though, but you can tell that split screen didn’t get a lot of love during development
I’m a RTX 2080 user and everything is ok here. I’ve had more crashes on starfield than bg3 and have had to revert to earlier saves due to broken mechanics which I’m used to in the Bethesda style of things
I love BG3. It’s a very different game from Skyrim though. After all, that city is basically a third of the game. Plus BG3 has all kinds of travel and camera limitations that Skyrim doesn’t. That’s what lets them make the city truly seem like a sprawling city.
By comparison, Skyrim basically lets you go everywhere and it has a far larger map. Skyrim chose the “big as an ocean, shallow as a puddle” approach when it comes to map design. Though NPCs are actually deeper than BG3. Skyrim NPCs have lifes, while BG3 is frozen in a moment.
I don’t know Skyrim wasn’t that shallow. It’s not like most of its locations are window dressing like in an assassin’s creed game. Almost the entire map had somewhat meaningful encounters and mini story arcs
Yeah you’re right. I do think that in comparison to BG3 it’s very shallow, but in a vacuum or in comparison to many other games it’s actually quite deep
There were many spots in Skyrim that were so pretty that I found myself just stopping and staring like I’d do in real life at scenic spots.
The first time you enter the Ratway and you encounter that weirdly beautiful scene of the woodcutter’s axe stuck in the stump?
✋😔👌
I’d go to the top of the magician guild’s tower in snow storms and just look around.
Still lacks a lot of buildings. BG2 had a more detailed city.