What bothers me about BG3 is preciely lack of a coherent artistic vision. It's a product aimed at as wide of an audience as possible, toughing everything and focusing on nothing. Not doing anything interesting as an RPG, not having interesting story to tell.
C'mon, you have at the best 20% of the game and story, how you can tell about story quality when you've seen literally nothing?
A far better defence, is that what he have is unfinished therefore it could improve before 1.0. Sure, the story could get better later on sure, but even if it does "the game gets really good after first xx hours" is not exactly a great trait to have. We have a decent chunk of game's opening and it's - meh? As an RPG in particular, I would point out the lack on narratively interesting choices to make.
Originally Posted by snowram
That is a harsh thing to say. Thanks to it, I was able to play a CRPG with two friends who would have never played a CRPG otherwise. We had a very good time thanks to presentation and the streamlined game play,
I am glad to hear it. I am just curious, what do you mean by "streamlined"? That is definitely not what I would call BG3. It is one of a more granual RPGs I played in a long time - I just don't think it does much with it. I would describe both PoEs as far more steamlined.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. BG3 is shaping to be an ok game, with unprecedented high production for the genre. I was more irritated at @Hichigo's silly defence, then game itself at this point.
