Baldur's Gate 3

[Dreiko]

And the operative word there is "later." I don't want to respec later, I want to start the game with a party I created. Even if it is for comedy purposes like I did with one run through ID2 with 4 1st level halflings, an elven ranger and a dwarf fighter.

Baldur's Gate has always been more story-driven than Icewind Dale. And that just naturally means less roleplaying potential. I'm not making MY character, I'm filling in the blanks on THEIR protagonist. I knew that going in, and I'll eventually probably have a great time with Baldur's Gate. But I'd have enjoyed it more if say... you could create 6 characters, that you find in the pods in the beginning. Or if their story is so central to the experience, at least let me choose what class each character is when you first meet them, and not after you've played the first several hours of the game and get to the town where the barber is that can change someone's entire backstory for a few gold.

It's really not that much later. You can find hirelings and the respec guy very early in the context of the massive playtime the game offers. Also you can legit do just fine with 2 fighters and especially 2 clerics, cause their weapon choice and subclass change how they play a lot. Like maybe one of the fighters can be more tanky with a mace and shield and the other can go for high dps with a greatsword or can be a ragned shooter with their archery proficiency, and clerics can kinda do anything, they can tank they can do damage they can heal they can buff, choice is yours based on their domain, stuff like that.

Changing the class of the origins isn't available early because their class is relevant in their actual stories, it's inextricable. Like the whole plot with the Cleric is her being faithful to her god, she can't quite play that off well if you shift her faith to a different one, it'd be incoherent and that would bother way more people.

 

[Satinavian]

Additionally, the reason why the first 4 guys you can pick up in the first 10 minutes are the classical quartet of cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue is that you can make a balanced group whatever your character is.

But i understand the desire to make your own party. The pathfinder games and Pillars games let you as ditch the official companions and make full hireling parties as well. But BG3 has hirelings as well though i didn't try them.

 

[Kyrian007]

You need to get to about level 5 (around where you've finished the first map area) before you get out of the shitty, low level misery. It gets much better after that.

I would have guessed level 6. In D&D, no matter which version, it has always been kind of tedious going until right around the time wizards can bust out a level 3 spell. It's one of the reasons why I haven't played tabletop D&D since 3.5, and haven't GMd since AD&D 2E. There are so many better RP systems

It's really not that much later. You can find hirelings and the respec guy very early in the context of the massive playtime the game offers. Also you can legit do just fine with 2 fighters and especially 2 clerics, cause their weapon choice and subclass change how they play a lot. Like maybe one of the fighters can be more tanky with a mace and shield and the other can go for high dps with a greatsword or can be a ragned shooter with their archery proficiency, and clerics can kinda do anything, they can tank they can do damage they can heal they can buff, choice is yours based on their domain, stuff like that.

Again though. In the context of the massive playtime... yes the game has a ton of content. But that amount of time means nothing if it is just kind of crappy until you get to whatever point X people say it gets better. There is no difference (when you are playing it) from 2 or 3 hours of bad game in expectation of a dozen good hours, or expecting more than 50 good hours. Those 2 hours are still just as tedious while you are playing through them. It just makes them feel like less of a slog when you are looking back at them. I consider Tears of the Kingdom and Skyrim both great games. But while I was playing through the terrible opens for them both, I wasn't caring about how great these games would be just a couple of hours later. I was wondering why people seemed to like them at all. And BG3's tedious period is taking me a lot longer than ToTK and Skyrim's awful beginnings.

Changing the class of the origins isn't available early because their class is relevant in their actual stories, it's inextricable. Like the whole plot with the Cleric is her being faithful to her god, she can't quite play that off well if you shift her faith to a different one, it'd be incoherent and that would bother way more people.

Yeah, I get that. So I'm wondering why it's so damnable important she had such a detailed story? Again, 20 more hours of gameplay later I'll probably be really into that story. But right now it is frustrating enough I'd rather she just had been some rando I rescued from a pod who didn't have any more story than a generic "revenge for my pa" storyline motive that any class could fit into.

I can see the edges of this being a really good game. It is the type of thing I usually love. The first half of a trap I set for that raiding party in the crypt made me feel really good. A grease spell and a well timed ignition worked really well as my wizard high tailed it out through a bottleneck with enemies hot on his heels. Then the combat engine let me down as the two lead enemies dashed right through the threatened areas of my hidden rogues. After that led to a party wipe I found out that because neither rogue were engaged in the combat, apparently they had forfeited their reactions? Which is of course, bullshit that the combat engine wasn't programmed well enough to recognize I had set up to take advantage of an attack of opportunity. That should have been two backstabs, or thwarted by perception saves. Anything but two rogues just standing there, thumbs up asses, while enemies rush inches past them completely unaware of their presence. I guess the only way to do that is to keybind the shift-space pause to something easy to slam on. Where was that in the loading screen tips? I had to even look up the shift space thing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Larian, 434+ employees.

Larian Studios Management Team | Org Chart

Larian Studios - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obsidian, 280 employees (estimated)

I might partly grant you this, except you should note I said with respect to Obsidian unless it has expanded recently, as the data I read at the time was a few years old. (We were mostly comparing Pillars-era Obsidian, not Microsoft-era) For the record, https://www.gamereactor.eu/obsidian-entertainment-has-now-reached-200-employees/

Bioware: 250, shortly to become 200. News fresh in today!

EA cuts 20% of BioWare staff and drops unionised playtesting company

The maker of Dragon Age and Mass Effect has had to endure cost-cutting measures as it becomes an ‘agile and more focused studio.’

metro.co.uk

Although the data I used at the time of posting was a few years old, and stated 300+ employees.

* * *

So, I may have not done the most thorough research, but I was still basically right.

Bluntly, who do you think you are and what do you think you are doing to chuck wild accusations when you haven't bothered checking your own claims? Why would you test me on stuff like this - surely you must know by now I do my research, and I can and will back up what I say?

Use the same source for everything or else it's apples to oranges like I said.

Obsidian Entertainment Information

rocketreach.co

BioWare Information

rocketreach.co

 

[BrawlMan]

though. In the context of the massive playtime... yes the game has a ton of content. But that amount of time means nothing if it is just kind of crappy until you get to whatever point X people say it gets better. There is no difference (when you are playing it) from 2 or 3 hours of bad game in expectation of a dozen good hours, or expecting more than 50 good hours. Those 2 hours are still just as tedious while you are playing through them. It just makes them feel like less of a slog when you are looking back at them. I consider Tears of the Kingdom and Skyrim both great games. But while I was playing through the terrible opens for them both, I wasn't caring about how great these games would be just a couple of hours later.I was wondering why people seemed to like them at all. And BG4's tedious period is taking me a lot longer than ToTK and Skyrim's awful beginnings.

Here we have another case of x amount of hours is when the game gets good. It's why I really don't have the patience for long games like this or RPGs anymore. It's the same reason why I couldn't get into the first Saints Row and that took 5 hours to get "good". As for your last two sentences, you more or less answered your own question. It's a case of your mileage by vary and how much patience you're are willing to put up with the early game or opening hours.

 

[Dreiko]

I would have guessed level 6. In D&D, no matter which version, it has always been kind of tedious going until right around the time wizards can bust out a level 3 spell. It's one of the reasons why I haven't played tabletop D&D since 3.5, and haven't GMd since AD&D 2E. There are so many better RP systems

Again though. In the context of the massive playtime... yes the game has a ton of content. But that amount of time means nothing if it is just kind of crappy until you get to whatever point X people say it gets better. There is no difference (when you are playing it) from 2 or 3 hours of bad game in expectation of a dozen good hours, or expecting more than 50 good hours. Those 2 hours are still just as tedious while you are playing through them. It just makes them feel like less of a slog when you are looking back at them. I consider Tears of the Kingdom and Skyrim both great games. But while I was playing through the terrible opens for them both, I wasn't caring about how great these games would be just a couple of hours later. I was wondering why people seemed to like them at all. And BG4's tedious period is taking me a lot longer than ToTK and Skyrim's awful beginnings.

I think you're massively exaggerating how truly bad it is to not have full class customization from the get go. You're still playing BG3 for those 2 hours, it's way better than "crappy" and just not "best crpg ever" territory like the rest of the 150 hours.

Yeah, I get that. So I'm wondering why it's so damnable important she had such a detailed story? Again, 20 more hours of gameplay later I'll probably be really into that story. But right now it is frustrating enough I'd rather she just had been some rando I rescued from a pod who didn't have any more story than a generic "revenge for my pa" storyline motive that any class could fit into.

I can see the edges of this being a really good game. It is the type of thing I usually love. The first half of a trap I set for that raiding party in the crypt made me feel really good. A grease spell and a well timed ignition worked really well as my wizard high tailed it out through a bottleneck with enemies hot on his heels. Then the combat engine let me down as the two lead enemies dashed right through the threatened areas of my hidden rogues. After that led to a party wipe I found out that because neither rogue were engaged in the combat, apparently they had forfeited their reactions? Which is of course, bullshit that the combat engine wasn't programmed well enough to recognize I had set up to take advantage of an attack of opportunity. That should have been two backstabs, or thwarted by perception saves. Anything but two rogues just standing there, thumbs up asses, while enemies rush inches past them completely unaware of their presence. I guess the only way to do that is to keybind the shift-space pause to something easy to slam on. Where was that in the loading screen tips? I had to even look up the shift space thing.

Because you can play as these chars, have them be your main char, so they need to hold up to that end and be detailed and interesting enough for those folks who play as them to have a good time.

Also more generally speaking, tons of media of all shapes and forms takes a while to get going. Persona 5 had an 8 hour tutorial segment. Saying that some things in the story only get interesting later on and not right away isn't a criticism as much as a description. The real question here is if, when they do get interesting, do they feel interesting enough to you to have been worth the somewhat plain early bits? If the answer is no, then that's fine and dandy, but it could very well be yes, in which case I think that that purifies those early bits because without them the later bits wouldn't have been half as interesting as they ended up being. Sometimes delayed gratification and holding onto a question for ages before it gets answered sweetens the experience. The key is just not holding it too long where you stop caring or forget about it. Though by the same token a game can just spill the beans too soon and just have no mystery left worth pondering and no twists of interest for half the game, which imo is a worse problem because a big thing for me is that thrill of discovery and the anticipation of something unpredictable transpiring in the future.

Here we have another case of x amount of hours is when the game gets good. It's why I really don't have the patience for long games like this or RPGs anymore. It's the same reason why I couldn't get into the first Saints Row and that took 5 hours to get "good". As for your last two sentences, you more or less answered your own question. It's a case of your mileage by vary and how much patience you're are willing to put up with the early game or opening hours.

That's only if you need to customize the classes of the entire party, most people who don't and just care about their main char's class (which you can customize instantly) and are fine with the default classes of the rest of the cast have the game instantly be great.

 

[BrawlMan]

That's only if you need to customize the classes of the entire party, most people who don't and just care about their main char's class (which you can customize instantly) and are fine with the default classes of the rest of the cast have the game instantly be great.

Still doesn't solve the issue he was pointing out. No stake in this, but a point is still a point. What works for people doesn't work out for everyone. There's a reason why Kyrian brought up those examples from Icewind Dale.

 

[Kyrian007]

I think you're massively exaggerating how truly bad it is to not have full class customization from the get go. You're still playing BG3 for those 2 hours, it's way better than "crappy" and just not "best crpg ever" territory like the rest of the 150 hours.

Well, as far as crpg's go. So far it flat out just isn't as good as Icewind Dale or ID 2. Or any of the Fallouts. Or KotOR or 2. Or...

And so on. But that's just my enjoyment. That's how it's going for me so far. I'm also fairly certain it will surpass many of those in my estimation at some point. None of the characters have had a chance to really "connect" with me. So that's why at the moment I really don't care about the narratives crafted for them. And my taste for games like this have a tendency towards preferring games that are more of just a framework for roleplaying, that allow ME to craft the headcanon narrative. It's why I like things like Elder Scrolls or Fallout. Or Icewind Dale. I'm not railroaded into someone else's character. My best Skyrim experience was a character that never wound up being the true Dragonborn. Some of the most fun I had with Fallout 4 was playing as a serial killer who's "cover family" and he were frozen and then unleashed on an unsuspecting Commonwealth. And he just went with the flow. It just seems so far like BG3 isn't going to be much like that kind of experience. Not necessarily bad, but just not the kind of thing I have a tendency to really get into.

And yes, maybe I'm massively exaggerating things. Or, I'm just encountering the familiar pushback many of us get anytime we experience a fan of something who can't stand it when we just refuse to admit something is actually the best game ever. And I'm guilty of being that guy at times too. And again, a month from now after I've managed to get enough free time to play it for 10 hours or so, I'll be singing its praises as much as TotK (probably.) But I will acknowledge it has a slow slog for a start as well.

 

[Dreiko]

Heads up, the preload is up on ps5. Game is just about 109 gigs.

 

[Ag3ma]

Use the same source for everything or else it's apples to oranges like I said.

No, use multiple sources. Pulling data from one source merely reinforces error if that source is not reliable.

 

[Kyrian007]

Alright, another very bizarre thing that happened in BG3 to me. I basically just found out I'm locked out of ever encountering one of the preprogrammed "companions." Because in my game, he died like a chump before I even realized he was supposed to be... "important." This is a few days or so back, like my second play session or something like that. I saw the cutscene where he was introduced and then started a combat with some goblins. He got hit with an arrow and hamstrung in round 1, chose to jump down from a ledge but landed in grease and fell prone, and got promptly pounded into mulch by a boss goblin. I think he got off one attack that missed before dying pathetically in a fight I got through with no hp lost for my party and all the rando NPC's still alive except one who got shot in the cutscene.

And frankly I don't even care. If some goblins can take this Wyll idiot out with such little effort, how effective or important could he actually be? But I looked around for at least a half hour trying to find the guy from the cutscene in that settlement camp, then gave up thinking he'd show up at some point. I mean there had been a whole cutscene introducing him, he must be kind of important. But I just looked it up, and yup... he was the pathetic moron that stumbled his way into getting killed by some level nothing goblins. Another point against the open of this game. I don't approve of plot armor, but that's serious disrespect to anyone involved in the programming of Wyll or writing his story or character... I'll probably never get to see the result of their hours of effort.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting over again. Maybe he won't die so pathetically this time around. My idea this time is making BG 3 a comedy. Make a bard with max charisma and strength and 1 intelligence. Mervin the loveable brain-damaged drummer boy who's built like the proverbial brick shithouse. Sometimes when I'm not enjoying a game, I can still MAKE it fun. I can just imagine all this serious story and plotlines around him going over his head as he sits in the corner of camp idly thumping his drum and hooting with laughter when a horse farts. The party of companions all discussing the important happenings in the world around him while they follow him down a path because he "saw something shiny over there."

 

[Baffle]

Alright, another very bizarre thing that happened in BG3 to me. I basically just found out I'm locked out of ever encountering one of the preprogrammed "companions." Because in my game, he died like a chump before I even realized he was supposed to be... "important." This is a few days or so back, like my second play session or something like that. I saw the cutscene where he was introduced and then started a combat with some goblins. He got hit with an arrow and hamstrung in round 1, chose to jump down from a ledge but landed in grease and fell prone, and got promptly pounded into mulch by a boss goblin. I think he got off one attack that missed before dying pathetically in a fight I got through with no hp lost for my party and all the rando NPC's still alive except one who got shot in the cutscene.

And frankly I don't even care. If some goblins can take this Wyll idiot out with such little effort, how effective or important could he actually be? But I looked around for at least a half hour trying to find the guy from the cutscene in that settlement camp, then gave up thinking he'd show up at some point. I mean there had been a whole cutscene introducing him, he must be kind of important. But I just looked it up, and yup... he was the pathetic moron that stumbled his way into getting killed by some level nothing goblins. Another point against the open of this game. I don't approve of plot armor, but that's serious disrespect to anyone involved in the programming of Wyll or writing his story or character... I'll probably never get to see the result of their hours of effort.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting over again. Maybe he won't die so pathetically this time around. My idea this time is making BG 3 a comedy. Make a bard with max charisma and strength and 1 intelligence. Mervin the loveable brain-damaged drummer boy who's built like the proverbial brick shithouse. Sometimes when I'm not enjoying a game, I can still MAKE it fun. I can just imagine all this serious story and plotlines around him going over his head as he sits in the corner of camp idly thumping his drum and hooting with laughter when a horse farts. The party of companions all discussing the important happenings in the world around him while they follow him down a path because he "saw something shiny over there."

Don't worry about it, Wyll is just irritating and full of faux humility. Better off dead (him, not me), I say.

 

[Kyrian007]

Don't worry about it, Wyll is just irritating and full of faux humility. Better off dead (him, not me), I say.

Awesome, thanks. Maybe I'll just stick with my current thief run and then maybe roll up Mervin for my next go.

 

[Satinavian]

Alright, another very bizarre thing that happened in BG3 to me. I basically just found out I'm locked out of ever encountering one of the preprogrammed "companions." Because in my game, he died like a chump before I even realized he was supposed to be... "important." This is a few days or so back, like my second play session or something like that. I saw the cutscene where he was introduced and then started a combat with some goblins. He got hit with an arrow and hamstrung in round 1, chose to jump down from a ledge but landed in grease and fell prone, and got promptly pounded into mulch by a boss goblin. I think he got off one attack that missed before dying pathetically in a fight I got through with no hp lost for my party and all the rando NPC's still alive except one who got shot in the cutscene.

You should have scrolls to revive people. They don't work always on companions before recruitment, but sometimes they do.

And frankly I don't even care. If some goblins can take this Wyll idiot out with such little effort, how effective or important could he actually be? But I looked around for at least a half hour trying to find the guy from the cutscene in that settlement camp, then gave up thinking he'd show up at some point. I mean there had been a whole cutscene introducing him, he must be kind of important. But I just looked it up, and yup... he was the pathetic moron that stumbled his way into getting killed by some level nothing goblins. Another point against the open of this game. I don't approve of plot armor, but that's serious disrespect to anyone involved in the programming of Wyll or writing his story or character... I'll probably never get to see the result of their hours of effort.

Well, all companions are lv1 before they join you (and get an xp boost) so you can level them up or combo class as you want. But that makes them fragile.

Otherwise, it is impossible to recruit/keep all companions anyway. Certain ones particularly only join for killing others. All are optional. They all interact with the main quests at certain points, but none is strictly needed anywhere. If you kill off/skip too many, you can fill the party with hirelings.


Of course i am not trying to convince you to like that game. Or that it is somehow the perfect RPG.

 

[Ag3ma]

Alright, another very bizarre thing that happened in BG3 to me. I basically just found out I'm locked out of ever encountering one of the preprogrammed "companions." Because in my game, he died like a chump before I even realized he was supposed to be... "important." This is a few days or so back, like my second play session or something like that. I saw the cutscene where he was introduced and then started a combat with some goblins. He got hit with an arrow and hamstrung in round 1, chose to jump down from a ledge but landed in grease and fell prone, and got promptly pounded into mulch by a boss goblin. I think he got off one attack that missed before dying pathetically in a fight I got through with no hp lost for my party and all the rando NPC's still alive except one who got shot in the cutscene.

And frankly I don't even care. If some goblins can take this Wyll idiot out with such little effort, how effective or important could he actually be? But I looked around for at least a half hour trying to find the guy from the cutscene in that settlement camp, then gave up thinking he'd show up at some point. I mean there had been a whole cutscene introducing him, he must be kind of important. But I just looked it up, and yup... he was the pathetic moron that stumbled his way into getting killed by some level nothing goblins. Another point against the open of this game. I don't approve of plot armor, but that's serious disrespect to anyone involved in the programming of Wyll or writing his story or character... I'll probably never get to see the result of their hours of effort.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting over again. Maybe he won't die so pathetically this time around. My idea this time is making BG 3 a comedy. Make a bard with max charisma and strength and 1 intelligence. Mervin the loveable brain-damaged drummer boy who's built like the proverbial brick shithouse. Sometimes when I'm not enjoying a game, I can still MAKE it fun. I can just imagine all this serious story and plotlines around him going over his head as he sits in the corner of camp idly thumping his drum and hooting with laughter when a horse farts. The party of companions all discussing the important happenings in the world around him while they follow him down a path because he "saw something shiny over there."

I have mixed feelings about this.

I actually think that NPCs dying is they way it should be done - but the counter-argument is that it does promptly lock the player out of a lot of content. And when it's in the hands of AI idiocy, well... From a narrative standpoint, there is the problem with the "Blade of the Coast" or whatever his cognomen is being so resolutely incapable of shredding some gobbos.

One can argue that, if prompted, you can ensure they survive - dash a healer over, throw heaing potions at them (yes, this works). I think there's at least two fights where I've spent a load of time plugging healing into an NPC I wanted to keep alive.

I think BG3 also flubs that eternal issue of computer game resurrection issue as well. You only seem to be able to revive (resurrect) party members - at least, I've never succeeded bringing back an NPC. But I think fundamentally you should be able to bring anyone back within the rules. Player feels bad that an irrelevant peasant got caught in the crossfire and wants to give them a second chance? Well, let them.

 

[Kyrian007]

You should have scrolls to revive people. They don't work always on companions before recruitment, but sometimes they do.

Yeah, but he died before I even realized he could be a companion. There were several rando npc's in that fight, he didn't stand out from them at all. I'm a few gameplay hours past that encounter. I wonder if his body is still over there somewhere?

I actually think that NPCs dying is they way it should be done - but the counter-argument is that it does promptly lock the player out of a lot of content. And when it's in the hands of AI idiocy, well... From a narrative standpoint, there is the problem with the "Blade of the Coast" or whatever his cognomen is being so resolutely incapable of shredding some gobbos.

One can argue that, if prompted, you can ensure they survive - dash a healer over, throw heaing potions at them (yes, this works). I think there's at least two fights where I've spent a load of time plugging healing into an NPC I wanted to keep alive.

I think BG3 also flubs that eternal issue of computer game resurrection issue as well. You only seem to be able to revive (resurrect) party members - at least, I've never succeeded bringing back an NPC. But I think fundamentally you should be able to bring anyone back within the rules. Player feels bad that an irrelevant peasant got caught in the crossfire and wants to give them a second chance? Well, let them.

Yeah, generally speaking rando npc's in-game deaths don't usually bother me. In Skyrim I did have to console command rez a town blacksmith who died in a random dragon attack. Dying and getting cheated back alive screwed up his pathing and really glitched up his dialogue. But he could still buy my garbage, I just role played off his constantly standing outside the town wall walking into it over and over until glitching through the ground and then reappearing as brain damage from dragon-related head trauma. Well, maybe BG3 will patch the issue of not being able to rez NPC's. Or the modders will get their hands on the game. Either way, I actually think I've figured out what I'm going to do. This run through BG3 will be about my custom character and maybe one of the companions. I'll avoid my usual inclination to do ALL sidequests and more or less treat this as kind of practice for my real "canon" play through BG3. Weirdly enough I do get a lot of enjoyment out of 2nd playthroughs if they differ a lot from the first run. I enjoyed all 5 of my Skyrim characters. I love going through a Fallout game as a sniper, and then turning around and making an unarmed specialist or crazy Harry the Bolshevik Muppet arsonist. For a serious BG 3 run, probably a wizard. And then Mervin. But realistically that will be 2024 me. Pretty soon I'll be very sidetracked by Starfield, My Time at Sandrock, and the Baten Kaitos Switch remasters. But I'll get back to BG3 at some point.

 

[Baffle]

But he could still buy my garbage, I just role played off his constantly standing outside the town wall walking into it over and over until glitching through the ground and then reappearing as brain damage from dragon-related head trauma.

Evil playthrough was it?

 

[CriticalGaming]

And frankly I don't even care. If some goblins can take this Wyll idiot out with such little effort, how effective or important could he actually be? But I looked around for at least a half hour trying to find the guy from the cutscene in that settlement camp, then gave up thinking he'd show up at some point. I mean there had been a whole cutscene introducing him, he must be kind of important. But I just looked it up, and yup... he was the pathetic moron that stumbled his way into getting killed by some level nothing goblins. Another point against the open of this game. I don't approve of plot armor, but that's serious disrespect to anyone involved in the programming of Wyll or writing his story or character... I'll probably never get to see the result of their hours of effort.

I killed Astarian in a cutscene and I don't care. So don't feel bad about it

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I have mixed feelings about this.

I actually think that NPCs dying is they way it should be done - but the counter-argument is that it does promptly lock the player out of a lot of content. And when it's in the hands of AI idiocy, well... From a narrative standpoint, there is the problem with the "Blade of the Coast" or whatever his cognomen is being so resolutely incapable of shredding some gobbos.

One can argue that, if prompted, you can ensure they survive - dash a healer over, throw heaing potions at them (yes, this works). I think there's at least two fights where I've spent a load of time plugging healing into an NPC I wanted to keep alive.

I think BG3 also flubs that eternal issue of computer game resurrection issue as well. You only seem to be able to revive (resurrect) party members - at least, I've never succeeded bringing back an NPC. But I think fundamentally you should be able to bring anyone back within the rules. Player feels bad that an irrelevant peasant got caught in the crossfire and wants to give them a second chance? Well, let them.

I wonder if there would be a way to implement something like event markers, where anytime something significant happens in any quest line (like NPC death or a choice that changes things) it would be stamped in the log, and players would have the option to go back to just before that event and try something different. This would be efficient and also help players who are sort of unaware of whatever repercussions there are for any given action, vs feeling like they just wasted a bunch of time and have to start over or something.

 

[Ag3ma]

I wonder if there would be a way to implement something like event markers, where anytime something significant happens in any quest line (like NPC death or a choice that changes things) it would be stamped in the log, and players would have the option to go back to just before that event and try something different.

In practice, many devs do create autosaves just before critical and irreversible decisions, just like they create autosaves just before major setpiece fights. Although they may not be clearly marked, and will likely be overwritten if that's how the autosave works by default, should another relevant autosave checkpoint be reached.