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.
Oh, spare me.
You are going to say the criticisms are vague when examples are given but your only rebuttal is...'nuh uh?'
I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary. As a direct request. You were also confronted about the double standard of trying to blame Larian's "last act-itis" on WOTC and chose not to respond to it. Start with that before you go around talking about objectivity.
Are there good things about the game? Sure.
If your reaction to 'this is not the greatest thing since sliced bread' is 'you're just nitpicking/hyperbole/hater' because they aren't worshipping it, that says far more about you than the original commenter.
VAs did a good job. The 5e implementation is not the best, but it is functional as a full campaign design and while I do have quibbles about their use of Bonus Actions, that is all they are quibbles. I can't complain about the visual design, I would readily admit the game is pretty. I played DOS 1 and 2, so forgive me for not being wow'd by the interactivity, but it is a step up. I played DoS 1 and 2, so I'm not going to pretend Larian's writing is not their weak point. Some lessons were learned from Fort Joy making Act 1 a truly great part of the game with class and race interactivity and a truly divergent set of options in the main story. World design was done best in Act 1 as well.
The problem is that the game doesn't meet the expectations it sets for itself and to go further, some of the ways in which it fails, it does so by a *large* amount. A 10/10 Act 1 that drops to a 'above average' Act 3, when the latter is a large part of the game means that maybe ending in the middle with a 8/10 is the reasonable take.
I do not care about rave reviews when it means this is the 4th game Larian has released unfinished in a row (and Dragon Commander is still scuffed). You might be okay with the 'release it now, fix it later' meta, but that means everyone of similar mind has just waived their right to complain about performance, bugs or unfinished games from any other developer for *hypocrisy.*
I do not care about it being something people love. This is not a zero sum game. Something can have really high highs AND really low lows. It can be fun and flawed. The developers can create a great experience while also making crippling mistakes.
It can be loved and be overhyped.
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.
To be fair, a 'more than the sum of its parts' can absolutely be part of the analysis. For example, the interactivity. On it's own, you can make a point of how the AI can't keep up or the transition between Turn Based and real time can have clunk that makes Lae'zel walk into your poison cloud, etc. But that's not the point, as even if the individual pieces can be jank, what it allows you to do is a charm and feature of its own. It is like how Skyrim is commonly called as wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle and while true, the point of the game is that ocean width and you can easily see how someone can enjoy it a lot and is something communicable. Or the whackiness of Saint's Row that distinguishes it from GTA or getting immersed in a story or setting even if the gameplay is meh (Planescape: Torment) or buggy as hell (Bloodline: Masquerades).
Just so, you had fun with DoS2 while being aware of its flaws. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Key words: While being aware of its flaws.
Getting flaws acknowledged with BG3 is an uphill battle. DoS2 was getting 10/10 scores from critics saying it would 'revolutionize modern RPGs' (Windows Central) or it was a game with 'little to no flaws' (WCCFTECH) with Arx released the way it was. We've shifted away from just being able to enjoy 'cult classics' to insisting that everything is the best thing since the last best thing.
