Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Long rest and missable events?

+1

I too subscribe to 'no notifications' In my real life, I dont get notifications lol, if I did my life would be SOOOOO much different right now I'm positive.

This particular gaming era really is driven by FOMO. Gacha games and loot boxes and such have done a number on us, huh. No, as much as I don't like the idea of resting and missing an outcome I might want/prefer, I like NPCs just standing around doing nothing even less. The more real you can make the world, the better.

I actually have a longer post I'm writing on the handling of time and distance in these games, but the short version is that if the passage of time is not consistent, then it is not acceptable to surprise the player with a case of time passing where the outcome is not obviously plausible and foreseeable.

And the passing of time in these games is almost never consistent. Just consider that you're plot-wise on a very unforgiving timer (at least that's the state of your knowledge), but if you follow that timer's logic, you'll end up meeting the Githyanki patrol at level 2 or 3 and you'll be killed. Time in these games is made to not matter because that often gets in a way of an enjoyable game on a much more fundmental level than "I'm missing a minor quest". We want to follow the plot, but we also want to explore. Both are intrinstic parts of an enjoyable game of this kind. And they do not mix well if the plot is on a timer, and that's why time in these games almost never really matters. That being the case, any case of timed events feels artificial and forced unless it is very much obvious that things don't make sense without it.

So, local time passing in a world where it globally does not pass should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. And it should not be necessary unless it is necessary by some event logic within the game world. Which means the fact that time is locally passing can be communicated with in-game events. And it should be communicated in every case. Because for reasons stated above, the default assumption in these games is that time passing does not matter.

The alternative is that it matters globally and consistently. I think that is desirable, but it would require that the game simulates its whole world all the time. It could be done, even with a game the size of BG3, but it would be a great deal of additional work. Also, the requirements of exploration and plot must be brought into accord. So no more plots that start with "you absolutely must do this ASAP". That is quite possible. BG1 did not have this problem, for instance, but it is a limitation on the kind of plot you might not want.

My argument if you could call it that, is simply that the majority of players will play the game a single time. Reactivity is great, but if you're spending 50% of your budget on something that 80% of your audience will never see due to how you've programmed things, I would question if that's a great idea. Even more so when it comes to important story points. I went through a playthrough in EA and somehow avoided almost every camp cutscene simply due to how I was playing, and that wasn't an extreme playthrough or anything. If you have a number of players missing key plot points and being confused, that's not a good thing.

But you're not missing key plot points. Case in point; You can encounter Shadowheart numerous times; but ignore her every time - If you do, so, she will end up in your camp.

Thing with Ethel is - You *can* speak with her, or go directly to her swamp and meet her there. I'd argue that's better than anything for a only-once- player. Lastly, if you only play it once, you don't notice it, either. BUt I doubt that's what most players do. Skyrim held on to its playerbase for ten years. The Classic BG's to this day.

Presuming its done well?
Yes, it is ... bcs then those players will get story as fitting to their choices and therefore their character as possible.
And that feels good.

Also, they may talk about it with their friends and find out how much their experience differ ... and maybe one day they desire another playtrough ... or not ofc. xD
But maybe they will ... and we, who replay every game several times (like i completed VtM:Bloodlines at least 30 times allready and i still love it) have one big problem: Its never as sweet as first time.
Secrets are revealed, plot twists are known, etc. etc.
Replay is never as good as first play, everybody knows that.

Unless ... replay differs so much, so its basicaly first play within same eviroment.
That is obviously impossible to achieve perfectly ... after all, no matter how you get there, BBEG will still be the same.
But the more differences, the better ...

So yes, it is worth it ... certainly much more for those who do ... probably for those who usualy dont, but maaaaybe they could this time ... and i think from certain point of view for those who certainly wouldnt aswell.

This is an absolutely abysmal take. Shadowheart is the exception because she carries a plot central artifact you cannot continue the game without...an artifact she's protecting with her life. So either you have to take her with you or you have to kill her for it. That is not something you can miss. But a lot of these other quests are not essential to the central plot and the game will outright skip them without even a note which is terrible design for a flimsy and inconsistent mechanic.

BUT YOU"RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING!

I'm done here.

Quests can literally be skipped, choices too.

Yeah... this is not a game for completionists.

If you are worried about seeing every little thing, you are going to need to have thousands of saves, one before any particular choice. Choosing to go to a new place sets events in motion. Choosing to rest is a choice. Walking out of a town is a choice. Casting the friends spell is a choice.

If you need to know every flag, switch, and trigger in the game, you're gonna want to learn dig into their code or wait until comprehensive guides are built for you to plan your every action out ahead of time.

Another one who completely fails to understand the bloody point.

I am well aware of all the branches and options and so on. That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all...zero.

What I am talking about is the game deciding to skip quests based on arbitrary and unexplained rules that rob you of the ability to make some choices in the first place. There are invisible lines during certain quests where if you rest the quest is just skipped and gone, but if you rest before that invisible line you can rest infinitely many times...you could rest a trillion long rests in a row, and nothing would be affected. And nothing in the game communicates this in any way. The player should be aware when he is on a clock and when he is not. A quest ending due to an inconsistent and arbitrary limit is bad.

Would you be okay if a quest that could have any time based component at all have an icon showing that there isn't unlimited time for this quest? Or are you asking for a pop-up every time some game state is about to change?

Time limits have to be communicated in some way...and have to be consistent. If at the start of the quest you are told you have five days or something then enforce that, if the quest says you must do this now, no time to waste, fine with that. But what you cannot have are arbitrary invisible lines during quests that flip an invisible switch from infinite time, to no time without communicating that to the player in any way.

I don’t know how all of the quest timers are handled, but if I see a building on fire and decide to set up camp and deal with it tomorrow, only to learn I missed my chance: fair.

+1

This is bad logic.

In real life, you can go up to your friend and strike up a conversation about practically anything. And your friend will probably talk about it. In this game, if you don't hear your companion talk about something at ONE SPECIFIC TIME, you'll just miss it forever. It's a bit silly to leave interactions up to chance or to make players constantly alt-tab to the BG3 wiki if they're paranoid they're going to miss some content.

I actually wouldn't mind this concept. For example: you find a man in a cage that says he's starving or something and your character does "Oh no, he won't survive another night if we don't get him out of there" and the quest is marked "Urgent" or something meaning that if you long rest when you have an urgent quest, you fail it. But hey if you pass it and have no urgent quests at hand, sleep for a week.

I do think it would be a nice way for players to know they are on immediate, semi-immediate, and regular quest lines. maybe not so in your face about it, but just by looking at the active quests you have, it will show which quests are which.

Generally speaking prisoners are provided some nourishment or they'd be killed rather than kept as prisoners. On average a human being can live around 3 weeks without food or around 3 days without water. So you actually could take a long rest before freeing the prisoners and they'd be fine...a long rest is considered around 8 hours in D&D which is about a 3rd of a day or around a 9th of the time it would take someone to die of dehydration.

Okay my guy you're thinking way too into my example. lol. I said a cage not a prison, and you don't know if the person has been there for 3 days already with no water or food. I'm just saying if something is time sensitive, then show that on the quest list as urgent or immediate.

Ill agree to disagree,

We're or I'm not talking about, a friendly conversation with someone I know, I'm talking about,... I'm walking down the yellow brick road on a mission to get to the emerald city, Now as I'm walking through the forest there is a little path leading off, I could go that way, or I could continue walking to the emerald city. Now If I do turn off, because of my agency, then I find a tree to cut down, and down drops a 'forever apple' that once eaten returns and has endless regenerative powers to keep me healthy, and by doing so I now have a keeper of the orchard hunting me down now.

As I see it, I don't want a pop up telling me... Go that way because once you cross over the poppy field, you wont be able to go back that route because the Orchard farmer will have harvested for the winter.

At least this is how im seeing the topic of this discussion. This will help to keep future playthroughs fresh or at least some little diamonds we can find