rivingtondown

Stonehearth was eventually abandoned, unfortunately, but the game is very much playable. The devs didn't just ghost the playerbase but had a kind of transfer of knowledge with the modders and the game lives on.

What's great about Stonehearth is it's multiplayer. A multiplayer colony management sim where two players can build an interconnected city (technically 2 separate colonies) and command an army to fend off increasingly difficult waves of goblin raids.

I've had so many fun games with my wife, we'll settle next to a cliff side, she has hearthlings (i.e. hobbits) and me as dwarves. I'd take care of mining and build all into the mountain, make us the best weapons with world-class smiths and she'd take care of the food, amazing cooks, animal husbandry, etc.

Funny you say that, Daggerfall is fondly remembered but only in spite of it's procedurally generated overworld. Daggerfall's openworld is extraordinarily barren, remarkably so. You literally will get lost if you walk more than 5 minutes from a town, and not in a fun way but because every direction you look is literally the exact same three tree and rock sprites and you lose sense of direction. Daggerfall's overworld is so bare and empty and large it actively encourages you to engage in the fast travel system with fleshed out gameplay mechanics like camping supplies and vehicles.

I see what you're getting at, I could see how someone might assume an seamless outer space based on that. As soon as you realize how much of a technical undertaking that is though, it's easy to assume they wouldn't go that route and not have blown that horn 2+ years ago as a huge feature. Something like that combined with a BGS RPG would be massive and I can't imagine a world where a company like BGS or Microsoft would be wanting to keep that a secret until release.

That surprises me... each BGS game is extraordinary iteritive over the previous one ever since Morriwind. They're like 20 years into iteritive design and arguably each iteration, while doing some interesting new things also takes a step or two back. Very obvious looking back over their history. They're really a one-note-studio.

To all of a sudden expect Starfield would manage to be that revolutionary (to their formula) seems shortsighted. Even the concept of having a fully-realized BGS RPG with a near infinitely open space exploration system seems like an impossible feat. On a technical level, sure, but the space between planets would be empty and desolate... and even expecting an interesting procedurally generated continent is a big ask today, let alone a planet, let alone a solar system, let alone a quarter of a galaxy.

Same here,

Unfortunately most of the folks in gaming media that I follow don't write or produce proper "reviews" anymore. Reading a review from IGN or Gamespot... I don't know anything about the reviewer so I take it with a grain of salt. Like with Starfield, I give the same weight to IGN giving it a 7 as I do with some no-name whatever tiny website I never heard of giving it a 9.5

Just have to read through the reviews. If someone docks the game for not letting you fly manually between solar systems like you do in Elite Dangerous then I just have to write-off the negativity because... of-course fucking not, did anyone expect that? With something like, the repeated knocks against the barren nature of the procedural generation leading to repetitive tedious travel - I take that more seriously, because it was something I was hoping they would have addressed when moving that direction. Something like the story sucking or the NPCs having cringey dialogue is completely subjective and means nothing without knowing the reviewer's tilt.

I feel you on that front. I have a Steam Deck and use it over my PC 90% of the time and even have BG3 running well on it but I prefer to sit at my desk for this game because the clutter is so dense that I need that big monitor and mouse to pixel hunt for all the little items and clicky things hidden around the world... and being able to spin that camera quickly around with a mouse while traversing is super important to catching things

The Pillars and Pathfinder games are both relatively daunting in terms of world size and, at least for Pathfinder, the rules are much more gritty... remember Pathfinder is a spin-off of DnD 3.5e and sticks relatively closely to that. While BG3 is based on the much more "friendly" DnD 5e rules. Pathfinder is much closer to BG2 than BG3 is, gameplay wise.

The big differences between BG3 and the other modern CRPGs is that BG3 does an exceptional job at presenting unprecedented player choice in traversal and combat. Other games have dialogue skill checks and all that but traversing the world is flat, literally practically menu driven and combat is all measurements and numbers. BG3 has free-form qualities that, in the world of video games, have so far only been utilized in immersive sims like Deus Ex and, oddly enough, I'd say the modern 3D Zeldas.

I have both.

I've had my switch for many years at this point, while my SteamDeck is barely 1 year old. I probably wouldn't buy a switch today if I didn't already have one but since I already have one I still use it very occasionally for exclusives I'm excited for (well, actually used it a ton for TotK recently). I don't have my Switch hacked and would just rather not go through the hassle of finding clean roms to download. The only Switch game I played on my Deck was Diablo III (because the PC version has no controller support or controller-friendly UI) but with Diablo IV now it's unnecessary.

All that being said, there's very few Switch exclusives I'm interested in for $60 anymore, even on the horizon, Zelda was probably the last one unless Mario Odyssey 2 is released before the end of the system's lifetime. And Zelda TotK was honestly the first game I bought for Switch in probably the last 2+ years... my wife played a few things on it but I had switched to PC exclusively (+Steamdeck) and PS5

There's not a game I prefer on the Switch over the Deck but I do think both systems have their merits. I've played through Zelda TotK on Switch recently and play my Deck more often (lately a lot of BG3)

The Deck is honking huge, while the switch is small. I much prefer the size of the Deck to the Switch but there's a an easy argument to be made there for portability.

The Switch is just more dock-friendly. Any serious Switch owner (who would care about docking) owns a Pro Controller. Docking to and undocking from a TV just works perfectly 100% of the time. You can buy a dock for the Steam Deck and you could Bluetooth a controller but it's definitely more finicky - specifically with some games especially.

Multi-person household. I have a wife and a kid. I'm very fortunate and my wife has her own Deck but we do share a Switch and a PS5. There were dozens of times I would have played Zelda or FF16 but my wife was using the console so I settled with my Deck. I could easily see the opposite happening if we didn't each own our own Steamdeck

I had pre-ordered prior to release and got it last July. The 256gb model but I've upgraded to a 1TB since then. I've had issues in the past with Heroic and debated simply running the game through Windows or installing GOG through Lutris but luckily Heroic worked.

Have you considered trying to just install GOG through Lutris? I run Diablo IV like that (via Battle.net of course) and it's simple enough.

I've been playing BG3 and perhaps I'm misunderstanding but you only have one action and one bonus action per turn and you only have so many spell slots per caster. Unless you have a leveled spell as an action and a separate leveled spell as a bonus action and enough spell slots for both you'd be hard pressed to cast more than a single spell per turn per character

I don't have an exact answer for you but I can 100% confirm it works through Heroic.

Switch to desktop, install heroic launcher, install BG3 with default options to internal SSD, launch with Proton Experimental, it will say you need .net so accept the dialogue and download the exe, use Heroic to install the .net exe to the game's prefix, go to the configuration again and add --skip-launcher (two hyphens at the beginning) to the launch commands.

That's it, I did that and ran the game from desktop and then used heroic to add it to Steam. Now I launch the game straight through Game Mode. I also added Heroic as a non-steam game so I can launch it occasionally for patches.

Skipping the launcher is important, as is installing the correct .net exe. I've read that some folks had the game claim to be installed but then realized it never actually completed successfully because they ran out of disk space during the final step. It's a very large install. I also read a one-off comment that power tools can break it, if you have that installed through decky loader.