246
‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Prepared For 100,000 Concurrent Players, They’ve Gotten 700,000 (www.forbes.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/gaming@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (10 children)

But if there's a social element to the game it's best to experience it as a part of a community, isn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's not at all focused on multiplayer. Honestly, it's probably super difficult to sink into the story if you're playing with other people because there's a ton of dialogue and that's difficult if everyone's not moving at the same pace. Multiplayer is probably intended for people who really want to invest a lot of time playing with a specific person. Single player is the primary way the game works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Multiplayer makes fights more fun, but the game's story is better experienced on single player.

    When I first started playing I was mostly just using basic attacks against enemies like a regular rpg. When I played with friends with all sets of different builds I saw them dropping furniture to barricade doors, shoving enemies off of cliffs, triggering traps from a distance and all sorts of cool stuff I wasn't even considering. But outside of fights everyone moved somewhere different and triggered different story elements that the others weren't seeing at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    I think that was intended for figure out ways to beat some of the time sensitive quest, where the trigger might be you talk to someone, enter an area, etc. If you long rest then the NPC might be dead and change the subplot. With multiplayer I don't know how they handle long rest(like can one player go long rest while others don't? or a voting system? etc.) Anyway, I do single player, and I think multiplayer could be fun as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Oh sorry I didn't explain myself well enough. I mean if there's a significant online component where a large part of the content is interactions with other players, it seems like there's a shelf life to getting the best experience from the game. So maybe it's worth having a legit copy instead of pirating some time down the road.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    You're not missing anything content-wise if you play it solo. In solo mode you control all 4 of your party members during their turns, and in the multiplayer mode you control some of your party and your friend(s) control the others. The game content is the same but the experience is very different since multiple players are generally less tactically coordinated than a single person and they can wander the map separately

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent