I think when you have nothing good to say about something people love and is getting rave reviews then the problem isn't the game. I think some people elevate their own disappointment - at even minor things - to hyperbolic levels and then lose all objectivity.
And it's unfortunate, because objective responses are valuable, it allows you to focus on the issue. When the issue is "everything", also vague and "despite the evidence to the contrary" then those responses have no value.
Being objective, overcoming your own bias is a skillset, some people have it but the vast majority don't seem to. I can't imagine what it must be like, horrifying I suppose, of being captive to your own emotions.
For example: There are things I actually like about Starfield - the ship design system, while a tad buggy and needing better labels on modules, is absolutely groundbreaking and a lot of fun. Designing ships and then walking through them was the most fun I had with the game.
Also the combat itself is not terrible - that IS something mods can improve on because the bone structure of THAT system is good. The rest of the game is quite bad, and it's a bone structure problem. Unfixable. When the universe isn't real but just set-dressing you are basically building on sand.
Comparatively, the bone structure of almost all of Bg3 is good, and so I know the majority of things that need improvement can be improved over time -
With the exception of multiplayer which I am not sure about. It may not be possible to EVER add GM mode to multiplayer and the ability to build additional modules- which is unfortunate because that was a huge draw of the game for me. I mean I started a multiplayer guild and put untold hours into that - now I may as well abandon it. It's sad but Bg3 is still a great single player game and a brilliant game overall.
Please, can we avoid the absurdity of endlessly accusing each other of lacking objectivity, and the insufferable smugness of such commentary as "Oh goodness, I cannot imagine what it is like, being captive to your own emotions!"
Grant the assumption that everyone is trying to evaluate the game as best they can, or no conversation can be had - after all, what's to stop me from pointing out that people who LIKE the game might be captive to their own emotions? It's not exactly unheard of to get swept up in the hype. It is childish (and self-motivated) to think that the opinions you hold are a sign of some personal fortitude and mental discipline that you hold over others that disagree with you.
People are not saying that "everything" is the issue. Rahaya is pointing out that there's an oddity: Despite all the acclaim, it is hard to point to *any one thing* in which BG3 really excels at. That's not necessarily an analysis I think is meaningful: Video games are art, to some degree, and they are greater than the sum of their parts. They can be average, or even subpar, in many measures, but the whole product can come together to be something that exceeds even those that technically outdo it in some respects. Although I would say that one curious thing is: If we're talking about some ineffable "Larian-ness" that their games achieve, that is hard to parse by any single measure, which makes their games fun - then I actually think DOS2 outdoes BG3 in that respect, in the first two acts.
The thing is, if they kept that "Larian-ness" throughout their entire game, we wouldn't need to pick apart what it was. When I played the first 2 acts of DOS2, I was *aware* of the game's shortcomings in many ways. I knew the companions were definitely not the best-written. I knew the story wasn't the greatest. (Although I will assert that their writing in DOS2 was actually better than it was in BG3). I knew they had some questionable decisions in their combat system (the armor system in that game is BAD.) The music didn't stand out to me. The villains didn't stand out to me. I hated their stupid origin character system.
But I didn't care about any of that, really, because in the first two acts the game was really fun.
The problem is that whatever makes Larian games really fun, they aren't able to keep it up for the whole game. Whatever ineffable quality they achieve, that I would say they have in the first 2 acts of DOS2 and the first act of BG3, they somehow lose partway through the game. They've *never* been able to keep it all the way through a single game! If they were able to keep it, the game could be flawed in a billion different ways and I wouldn't care.
But because they *do* lose it, people are left to pick apart the game and try to figure out - what was it that actually MADE the game so fun? And the reality is, it's frustratingly hard to say - because when you pick them apart, even during their GOOD parts, so many of the individual elements of a Larian game just...aren't great. I think the problem is that this is sort of like trying to evaluate artwork by looking at the quality of the brush strokes and the paints; or trying to evaluate a sandwich by looking at how good its pickles and bread were. Individual elements matter some, yes, but in art (as well as in sandwiches) how they are combined can be much more important.
But we want to replicate it, so we have to try SOMETHING. Or at least - I want Larian to replicate it. I want, for the love of god PLEASE, just ONE GAME, Larian, one game where you keep that quality throughout! Because when they LOSE that quality, Larian loses it HARD. DOS2 has the distinction of being the single game I've played most that I've never finished. I found the first two acts of that game so fun, and the final act so unbearable, that despite playing it for hundreds and hundreds of hours I have never *once* finished it. And the sad fact is I think that in BG3 I'll find myself in a similar boat. I pushed my way through the final act on my first run, but I think if I replay it in the future that, barring massive changes, I'll likely never push my way through it again. Perhaps with mods.
And the reality is....that's kind of not a whole lot, compared to other games, for me to have spent 60 bucks on. It's actualy significantly less than I got out of DOS2. That's the thing; at first glance I said that BG3, despite my disappointments, was Larian's best gameplay and writing yet. But actually, upon further consideration, and going back to DOS2 for a bit....I don't actually know that that's true. I think DOS2 might just outright be better in the gameplay and writing departments. So it's just another way in which all the praise for this highly flawed game starts to seem stranger to me.
