Originally Posted by Zentu
Originally Posted by Archaven
just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10.

First I have learned to ignore reviewers that give 10/10 or 1/10 ratings, especially if they give them more than once ever year or so. The reason is a 10/10 should reflect a perfect game that needs nothing done (maybe some MINOR tweaking) and such a game has never existed. The same with 1/10 which is a game (IMO) have has ZERO redeeming qualities, I have never seen a game that bad, all have something, even if it is just minor, that could make it fun.

Having played through the whole game, a 5/10 score is LOW, I would still go 7.5 to even 8 out of ten as the game is very well done, even with the flaws. There is no way I would go higher than 8 unless the third act is revised and the game optimized. As for the performance, PART of the blame for that lies with the hardware enthusiast community that has lied to gamers, telling them that the GPU is the be all/end all for building a gaming PC. To many people have unbalanced builds. Also RPGs have always been more CPU heavy than shooters, which is what is used in the majority of hardware benchmarking.

Also you mentioned Starfield, while direct comparisons are really bad as these are two very different styles of gaming, I found Starfield to be boring and just poorly made. They are using an ANCIENT game engine that is obviously way past it's prime and an open "world" that feels empty compared to many other RPGs. Not to mention massively glaring poor design choice such as not giving you an in game map for moving around the city. Even if you have to discover the locations, a map showing the way around would be awesome, plsu this is the future, hell we have a map on our phones today.

I don't know. I'm sure it varies from person to person, but due to bugs and performance issues I found that act 3 was, at some points, borderline unplayable. And even if it were COMPLETELY bug-free, there is still a HUGE decline in quality both in combat and storytelling. Maybe things have improved (I have not made my way back to act 3 since my first playthrough). But act 3 is a huge chunk of the game, and it became a humongous slog to me. Quite frankly, it just seemed like it wasn't finished and barely tested. I think that a humongous portion of the game being in that state justifies the score being dropped to a 6/10, even if I thought act 1 was for the most part fantastic. But then that's the problem with reducing your evaluation of an entire game to a single score; it's a very low-dimensional metric for what is inherently a high-dimensional thing (an honest evaluation of a game's quality.) But yes, in general do not trust people who give perfect scores or "perfectly bad" scores. In fact, you should keep in mind everyone who gave bg3 a 10/10 or a 5/5, because frankly they blatantly proved their untrustworthiness. With the state act 3 was in, there was simply *no way* this game warranted a perfect score.