Cross-platform play currently isn’t available for me and my PC buddies until the Mac version gets the full release build next week. If the PC version is on patch 2, will that still be compatible for cross-platform play, or will we forever be playing catch up?
I am absolutely fucking loving this game. The split screen coop is incredible, albeit it needs some work. Honestly one of the best game me and my SO have played in a long, long time and by far the most immersive campaign we’ve ever been able to play together.
I’m playing on Linux and there are only a few issues I’ve come across: local multiplayer is disabled by default and requires an environment variable to enable, also there seems to be a memory leak after playing for a few hours where fps drops pretty dramatically. Other than that I don’t think there’s much of a difference between windows and pc.
Of all the games to comment this on, BG3 is one game that is justified at full price for the sheer density of it, and all of it interesting. From day one they were hotfixing and it’s never run badly, just not perfectly optimized.
I get gaming on a budget but this comment really sounds like hate trying to say it doesn’t deserve full price.
For certain kinds of games I like to buy them for full price to show my support to the developers. I bought Original Sin 2 for full price and I’m buying Baldur’s Gate 3 at full price.
That’s a big reason why I checked out of console gaming for many, many years. I went from the original NES to the PS2. And I made a specific point to buy the disc version of my PS5 so I could still get dirt cheap used games.
Realistically, gaming is an inexpensive hobby if you’re smart about it. I’m astounded at what people spend on things like dining, alcohol, sports (travel and gear), hunting, boats/atvs, etc. That $60 game you’ll play every day for a month would be a daily expense in other circles.
I am normally a budget gamer, but Baldur’s Gate 1 & 2 were a huge part of my childhood, and after seeing how good the game was, I caved. And I’m glad I did! I am 8 hours into the storyline and I still feel like I’ve only scratched the surface. The quality is fantastic. AC6 might break me too, but I think I can be patient on that one.
My love for the first two games is sortof why I’m avoiding it. I mean, I even didn’t like the concept of the proposed Black Hound game being called Baldur’s Gate 3. So I’m going to come in with opinions and just ruin it for myself even if its as good as some say, and that’s assuming WoTC having decades to ruin every scrap of coherency in the setting’s lore hasn’t impacted things negatively. (One thing I really appreciate about Larian’s handling of BG3 is that they gave me enough info to come to that conclusion first.)
Also it's a Larian game, so not only will it have all the thousands of bugs fixed (literally, the first patch had over a thousand fixes), you'll probably get the Extended Enhanced Definitive Divine Edition that rewrites half the quests and adds a bunch of new ones.
Lmao, if by wins you mean loses out than yea. BG3 is an amazing experience and you’re not gonna have a bad time period in terms of playability.
This isn’t the games that day 1, week 1, week 2, etc patches because the game was released unfinished. This is them taking serious user feedback for small niche issues. That’s how you properly care for your user base.
But keep hating on things you don’t actually understand I guess
I mean… I get that it’s the thing to do right now – haphazardly throwing more money than you can afford at every service, streamer, Patreon, Kickstarter, product or vague idea that you pledge your “support” to. Then five minutes later, complaining about how you don’t have enough money for food/housing/whatever; and blaming someone else for that.
I probably spend $100 or less per year on games, and I’ve got plenty to keep me busy until I’m a corpse.
You joke, but it’s curious they’re promising performance patches right after getting Microsoft’s engineering help to find issues with the engine.
I find it funny how any game being released with any sort of badly optimized PC code gets absolutely hammered on Lemmy and Reddit for “rushing things out” and “not having good enough QC” and “ship now, patch later”, but Baldur’s Gate gets a pass. Why aren’t you there commenting “silly developer, why didn’t they think of this earlier?”
The fact that you like the game/studio doesn’t change the fact that they’ve shipped an engine that treats modern CPUs like Core 2 Quads.
Because when you are giant studio using Unreal Engine there really is no excuse for poor performance or porting. But when you are a (relatively to Epic or Sony/Microsoft etc) a tiny team building a game using the engine you came up with yourself with its roots somewhere around 2010-ish , back when 6 cores was a brand new thing and have been tweaking it ever since, you do get some slack if it doesn't multithread perfectly.
Yeah you get some slack as in I’ll still recommend the game, purchase it, enjoy it and state that it’s great. I’m still going to complain about shitty optimizations so that even more people get to enjoy the game in all it’s glory. It’s painful that my gf’s game lags all the time and that she can’t enjoy the same cutscenes that I do because of performance.
Because a lot of people aren’t experiencing much in the way of performance issues yet? I’ve not yet reached Act 3 where I hear it has the most impact so performance has been fine for me, like the vast majority of the userbase at this stage, I imagine. I’ll see how I feel once I hit Act 3.
I’ve not yet reached Act 3 where I hear it has the most impact so performance has been fine for me
And unless you plan on stopping the game on Act 2, eventually you will reach Act 3 and understand why I and others are complaining about CPU affinity.
Take the Steam Deck, for instance. The community started by celebrating how Baldur’s Gate 3 ran at a locked 40 FPS on the system, how great the studio is, how fun. Wait a few days for people to reach Act 3, and now they’re struggling to maintain 20 FPS, borderline unplayable. That’s the difference.
If you made a valid point in a discussion positive manner, then people might take you seriously. But then again, maybe you want to come across as an asshole.
It also crashes (at least for some people) if you set CPU affinity at all. That’s really strange, and problematic if you’re using certain cores for background work, or if you just want to avoid the game having to cross a CCD boundary. Here’s hoping they fix it.
This game is in the height of fanboy denialism. Any criticism, no matter how small or how valid is met with rejection and blaming. It’s like you have to preface and end everything with “I am loving the game and recommend it” or else people will downvote you for not liking the game.
It’s so upsetting seeing this game get praised as one of the most polished games. I guess the bar really is that low these days. I’m glad they’re actively fixing stuff but there’s a lot to fix.
Im a developer, and ive written a thread scheduler for an os, i know what threads are :‘)
The game has 47 threads, which you can verify in task manager. What you are thinking of is how many threads the cpu can process in parallel, which is indeed 4 on my cpu and nowhere before was it said you were talking about cpu “cores” ( or cpu threads like you call them )
However, like i said, the game runs perfectly on my system and my friends’ so the engine and windows seem to balance the priority and timings of those 47 threads just nicely here, even past act 2, and i dont see why it would need to use more cpu cores to process… Nothing. Adding more threads and using more cpu cores does not always mean faster processing of data…
Look, this is the last time ill reply to you because weve deviated far from the original topic.
There is only 1 definition of a thread. A thread is a piece of code that is executed on a processor, and which contains the state of a processor and its registers ( where in memory it was executing, memory locations, stack, state of the function it was executing,… ). Which thread gets executed is for the operating system to decide depending on several things ( priority or affinity as its called in windows , type of thread, what layer of the os requests time etc etc ).
There is , at its core, no such thing as a “cpu thread”. This is marketting speak to indicate how much threads a cpu can processes at the same time. Depending on the operating system’s scheduler, the processor and the type of instruction it needs to process, a cpu could processes 16 threads at the same time on a 8 core/16thread cpu so its constantly using everything of a cpu. However, if 2 or more threads are doing similar instructions it is possible a thread has to wait for the other to process despite them not having anything to do with each other. Thats on the processor’s scheduler to decide btw.
Adding more threads to the os’ thread queue isnt magically going to make things faster. Take a look at dolphin’s thread and core usage. They have ( used to?) be against adding more threads to the emulator because it made 0 sense to do so, despite some games running slow. This resulted in dolphin at one point using 2 cores 100% on a quad core cpu, while 2 were doing nothing. Just because adding threads that would 90% of the time do nothing was a waste of resources and processing time.
I have a feeling you dont understand how this stuff works, as you have given me nothing of proof, details or anything of how any of this works. Have you profiled the game? Checked gpu busy vs cpu busy? Looked beyond the cpu % usage? Checked on different hardware?
Add comment