Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General A lengthy review after pondering about the game.

I'd strongly suggest you read the posts you're reacting against, Dex. Every time you reiterate that you haven't, you make yourself look more foolish - at least to me.

Yes, many things the OP mentioned are simple factual truths. I'd recommend you read the post properly, as it's very easy to sort the baseline truths from the personal opinions, if you read, rather than skim.

Here's one as an example:


This is objectively true. There are more custom dialogues and more custom interactions and reactions for Drow and Gith than there are for elves or humans, or any other race in Act 1. This is not opinion - it's just an empirical detail about the game. Notice I'm making no statement of opinion or judgement about what this means, what I think about it, or whether it's good or bad - it's just a piece of factual information.

Here's one that is NOT a statement of a fact, but rather personal opinion:


This is clearly a personal opinion, and a subjective impression, voiced by the poster as their personal take - it's not posed as being an objective truth or an empirical fact, it's clearly their personal experience and opinion.

Their post contains both types of statements - factually based ones, and opinion-based ones. Writing the entire post off as attempting to blanket one or the other is disingenuous and is not an action taken in good faith or with a mind towards open discussion... it's just an attack.

I did not get the impression, at any point, as though the OP was trying to claim any kind of objective truth about the game's quality - those elements of their post were clearly based on personal opinion and experience, as they noted with their language.

You clearly did feel strongly enough to jump up and attack the OP, and defend the game, rather than simply ignoring a review whose opinion you did not agree with - you are the one pushing to deride, discredit and to make a fight out of someone posting their personal experiences and review.

I'd be curious to know what part of my own comment was me projecting something as an objective truth, which was my own personal opinion only; you say that I did, and I'd like to know where you saw that, especially since you say also that you didn't really read my post. If you've already decided what I'm saying without reading it, then we are not having a conversation, and you are just posting here to start conflict. Please don't do that.

Wonder no more: the entirety of it. Why? Because you prove that simply presenting an argument is a projection of truth, to which I agree, thus making all of it as projection.



The reason is because the *not* a statement of fact become a vocal point of their argument.

Saying:
is not wrong. But making it sole reason is incorrect. Considering the entirety of cRPG genre has never come close to achieving what BG3 has. So yes it's true but incorrect. And probably Pretentious.

Here is a challenge: Mention 1 cRPG (especially DnD-based cRPG) that has reactivity to your race better than BG3, I *will* prove you wrong.

The why I posted here to remind people that these are OP opinions, shouldn't be perceived as fact, because for some the language they're using is not clear enough and tend to be perceived as assertions of opinions as truth.

I think when you make a harsh critique, please make a comparison to what you think is better, The WoTR/KM comparison is decent, so we can understand how laughable/warped/understandable/closer to truth that opinion actually is. I mean comparing BG3 to DA is insult to BG3, compare it to WoTR/KM, PoEs or at least prior Infinity Engine games, but DA/Mass Effect, plain comical.

I'm sure what you just wrote in that top sentence makes sense to you in your own mind... It does not make much in the way of rational sense to my reading though. I cannot respond to something that is unintelligible to me and lacking in coherent meaning; you've conjugated a bunch of words and phrases together, but they don't mean anything of substance; whatever you were trying to convey did not come across, I'm sorry to say. If you'd like to try to explain what you're saying a little more, I'm happy to listen, but if it's waxing philosophical, it might be better suited as PM, rather than derailing this topic further.

Regardless, consider your 'reminder' noted, but also unnecessary, since everyone who is mature enough to post on a public forum is aware that a review of a game is a recounting of a personal and subjective opinion.

If you're disputing that some of its elements are factual, and are disputing those facts, then, as I invited before, I'd welcome you to point out the errors and offer corrections, if you would like to contribute to the discussion.

For example... you took issue with the statement that there is more reactivity for some races than others in the first act; this is factually true (objectively), and severed as the basis for a complaint (subjective opinion). Do you actually dispute that fact, or do you just disagree with the opinion that that particular detail reflects negatively on the game? It sounds like (from your edit) it's the latter. That's fine! The challenge you've set, though, is not really relevant - you might like people to joust at the windmill of your choosing, but I'm not interested in doing so, and the OP certainly has no obligation to do so. If the OP listed a fact, and then commented on how they felt that negatively impacted the feel of the game for them, telling them that no game previously has done that thing more, and challenging them to find one, is not really a coherent response, or a relevant addition to the conversation, at least not in my opinion. What matters for the review is how that element made the game feel for them, and if that disparity caused negative feelings, then that is the comment that they are making.

I'd also invite you to stop throwing around nebulous and indistinct recriminations and dismissals, without actually directing them towards any substantive point - because as I said, that kind of posting tends to come off as attacking for the sake of starting conflict.

Addendum:


It has been politely requested in this thread already that we not insult, deride or mock each others opinions. You are continuing to do so, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop. You have your opinion on the companions in other games, compared to this one, and others have theirs. I'd personally take Linzi and Jubilost over the entire cadre of BG3 companions in a heart beat; that's my opinion, based on my personal tastes and experiences - calling that 'warped' 'laughable' or 'comical' is not appreciated and is not acceptable.

Arcanum you say? I'm just going to leave this here (it's a joke, or is it?)

Euph my boo, I'm just joking about the gnome meme from Arcanum lol. I'm not even the person asking the reactivity question.

No worries


Oh I agree, Arcanum is one of those special games that I wish was more popular.(but then again its old so maybe we'll get something similar in the future) I don't think any other game comes near (there are some that have a lot of reactivity but Arcanum, I think still holds the crown) when it comes to reactivity.

From race to gender, even using magic or tech, it has it all. Hell the whole game changes if you roleplay as a moron.



That's why I find it funny when someone say that BG3 is doing something never seen before or that it beats its predecessors. (Again I don't hate the game, I've enjoyed it for what it is I just don't pretend its something more than it is.)

Arcanum is definitely the ONE game that actually deserves and needs an Enhanced Edition-type remaster, but boy will it probably be sanitized to hell and back if it were done by the hypothetical Beamdog-type team. I would also love to see a second attempt at Dragon Commander by Larian themselves, but the same issue also arises, given how it allowed the player to commit literal war crimes and ban same-sex marriage with a huge grin on its face, not to mention how Swen himself called it something along the lines of a "game for men". Some ten years and now it seems Larian would rather forget it ever existed despite it being their first foray into the "bigger" industry scene after the original Divinity trilogy. Too bad.

My first (and so far only, the game isn't really inspiring enough to jump in for a replay so soon compared to D:OS2, for example) run was as a gith and the reactivity seems to barely exist not only when you'd think it should make your life more difficult (the only moment in Act 3 I found was the Flaming Fist quartermaster who apparently knows who githyanki are and won't sell to them, but every street peddler is perfectly fine...), but the most of Shadowheart's interactions (specifically, hiring her and anything related to her rivalry with Lae'zel) also ignore that the PC is a gith themselves. Act 2 seemed to lack ANY githyanki reactivity whatsoever, although it might be because I let Last Light be destroyed.

As for the city, one would think that given the refugee situation and it being under martial law, any strangers and outsiders running around in the streets would raise suspicion, but specifically those who are literal aliens or from a race that the surfacers have every reason to be conscious about - then again, even the Flaming Fist at Waukeen's Rest who were just attacked by a drow party can only give an equivalent of a stuck-out tongue to a drow character instead of assuming they are here to finish the job, so...

I also really, really loved Arcanum. I like BG3 too.

Arcanum remaster/Enhanced Edition/Remake would give me consternation, because it would quite likely lose the features that made me love Arcanum in the first place. I suppose it could go unpurchased if it is bad though.

"The longer I think about it, the less impressed I am."

This really sums up Larian games in general. Or at least, the DOS games and BG3.

Larian is very good at making games that, at least for a portion of their playthrough, seem very appealing on first glance. Hey, a magic system where you can combine a ton of surface effects? Cool. Hey, a DnD 5e implementation that makes non-attack actions in combat meaningful? Cool. And the early portions of their games - the first act, or the first half - seem relatively well-polished, at least on first glance. And even if there is some jank, you're having fun, so you easily gloss over it. The idea is so charming, the options available to you for solving situations so numerous and seem so well thought out, and combat at early levels is still challenging and fun.

But then the inevitable happens. The inevitable Larian pattern. At some point, you get to the part of the game where they clearly did not put as much attention in. For whatever reason. Maybe they are just chronically bad at planning out the time they spend on various different portions of the game; maybe they keep making the same mistake where they spend so much time on the first part that they simply run out of time on the second part. But for whatever reason, the quality of the game you're playing decreases drastically.

And maybe it takes you a while to realize this. I know it did for me. When I played DOS1, I was so charmed by the game that I easily played all the way through to the end. I remember feeling unsatisfied and disappointed with the ending, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Playing DOS2, I thought the first half of the game was fantastic....but I kept finding myself starting over after the first two acts. At first, I didn't know why. I blamed it on myself at first; I very often restart games with new classes....though that didn't make sense as an explanation for DOS2 with being able to respec. Eventually I forced myself to stick with a playthrough, and it dawned on me: I kept restarting because they game becomes significantly less fun after the first two acts. When it came to BG3, I went in HOPING that this pattern wouldn't re-emerge, but worrying that it would; and so I spotted it right away.

And so, for a while, I thought to myself: Well, the Larian thing is that they make good first halves of their games, fantastic ones, even, and drop the ball in the second half. If only they could keep up the quality of the first half of their games for the *entire* game, they'd make some of the best video games ever.

But then I started asking myself: What actually was so great about the first half of their games? In what way did they actually stand out? In BG3, what was it I actually liked in the first half of the game?

Because, well...isn't it true that even the first half of their games have some glaring flaws? Isn't it true that even in the first act of BG3, a bunch of spell implementations are really badly bugged? Isn't it true that even early on, the main plot of this game is, well, kind of dumb, and there is major narrative dissonance - urging you to deal with the tadpole in your head as quickly as possible, while at the same time locking a ton of character interactions behind long-rest camp scenes that you will only use if you're going at a leisurely pace? Isn't it true that none of the characters are really all that well-written either? Wouldn't quite a few of them be totally obnoxious if it wasn't for the voice acting making them seem much more charming? (Looking at you, Gale, who when you think about it is a Mary Sue character to an absurd degree.) Isn't it true that character animations seem kind of weird sometimes? I also...don't actually really care all that much for the mocap models. It makes tieflings in particular look like human cosplayers.

That's not to say there's nothing to like. I think the environments look nice, for a top-down game, especially the underdark. I still think the variety of options they give you for dealing with problems in act 1 is very solid (and is probably the most notable thing that disappears over the course of play.) While some people might say that things like voiced lines and mocap are "shallow", they go a long way to making characters more expressive and likable. I'll be blunt: The way they are written, I'd probably *hate* almost every single BG3 character (except maybe Lae'zel.) But the voiced lines, and seeing the emotion expressed in their faces, just inherently makes them feel more real and likable. It made me realize how other cRPGs almost seemed to *go out of their way* to make it difficult to relate to the characters. In most of them you get just a paper doll and a single static portrait - and *some* voiced lines. You don't have to go to BG3 levels of characters with mocap, but like, think of the Pathfinder games. Would it be so hard to have like, a pack of portraits per character - so in conversation with a NPC, you could show a happy portrait when they're happy, a sad portrait when they're sad, etc.?

But in the end, asking myself these questions made me realize: Larian, even in their best moments, doesn't make great games. They make extremely flawed games. But when they put in enough polish, like they do in the first act of BG3, you can gloss over these flaws. But even if they put in that act 1 polish for all of BG3 - even if every act of BG3 was the same quality as act 1 - on a second playthrough, I'd probably still spot the flaws. But I'd be much more satisfied with the game, and much more likely to replay it. For BG3, well...I simply cannot see myself replaying it until the DE, if ever. It was a total chore for me to push through the final act. And in some ways, in terms of sheer *fun*, I think it's a step back for Larian: I actually think the first half of DOS2 was more fun than the first act of BG3, in terms of combat and gameplay at least.

My conclusion from BG3, and what I will tell all my friends if they ask, is this: Never buy Larian games on release. Always wait until, at least, the DE or a massive sale. And to never believe the weird hype that builds up around their games. BG3 absolutely does not deserve the review scores it got, or the level of slobbering praise it got. I don't pay super close attention to these sorts of things, so I don't know *why* so many game journalists seemed so uncritical when it came to BG3, but I don't want to blame Larian for it if it's not their fault.

To put people back into place who think BG3 is this "hail marry" of the most reactive Crpg the world has ever seen...really glad people here mention Arcanum.

Plenty of other older games that are reactive and do things better than BG3, while other things not as well. BG2 and Planescape Torment included.
Ultima 7 in 1992 was also pretty damm reactive. Oh and it had a day/night, weather and NPC schedule system...something BG3 laughably lacks.

If your 15 to 25 years old and never gamed in the 90s, early 2000s. I get it. Nothing too great to boast about in the last decade. So many ACTION RPGs, remakes, and "socially aware" modernized enhanced editions...with a very few pretty good cRPGs...So BG3 seems like the second coming.

Oh and I ask , IMAGINE BG3 with NO cinematic dialogues. No close-ups. Same content/story, no cinematics, no voices, everything in text and top down.

Now we can focus more on gameplay, mechanics and story.

Now think about all the interactions and REACTIVENESS again. Is it really all that original??

This to be a an honest and very on the mark assessment. There has been a level of starvation for CRRPG fans for some time. Devs have spent their time focusing on the Action Adventure style RPGs like Skyrim which leans heavily on better graphics over deeper game play. They also push ARPGs like Diablo that focus alot on the action and mechanics with the storyline as a minor side note. This does not make them bad games, this is just a VASTLY different play style from CRPGs.

Of late we have seen some effort for a comeback; Solasata, Pathfinder, Divinity, Pillars. These have all tried to scratch the CRPG itch and done a good job. However even DOS2 gave the impression of a B tier developer. With BG3 we are feeling like a real A tier effort has been put into the CRPG space and the fact it is wildly successful fills us with hope that this segment will not be delegated to the bottom of the development list any longer.

To be honest, critics were the same way with Divinity Original Sin 2. If you look at the reviews from critics for that game, even then were saying it was going to revolutionize the genre or be the new standard for RPGs unironically. One in particular stood out to me as saying it had some big flaws...while giving it a 100/100 anyway. A lot of reviews didn't mention any flaws at all giving it a decent amount of perfect scores, or if they did, at most it ended up in the high 80s ending up with a high score of 93 on Metacritic...

While the last two acts of the game took a nose dive in quality bordering actually unplayable at the finale.

It did that by being one of the most shallow CRPGs I've seen. 'Mainstream' has never come with more depth or complexity. It has to justify the expense by reaching as broad an audience as possible. So that hope is looking like a money's paw to me.

I’m shocked you guys don’t like the game? What game DO you like then?

Hello Kitty Island Adventure

I am not sure I agree with this assessment but in the end that is subjective. The success of BG3 however is less how it stacks up to older CRPGs and more how it stacks up to other games out now. Comparatively BG3 is a mile deep when you look at Starfield, Elden Ring and other games that are claiming the RPG tag.


It is not about not liking this game, this is an assumption to many people make. Often the people most critical of a game LOVE it, they just see the potential and long for more. |

Take me for example, I am a HUGE DnD fan and an even bigger fan of the Forgotten Realms. I have run campaigns in it using DnD, Pathfinder and Dangerous Journeys over the years because I so love the game world. However I am very critical of the way many games portrait these aspects, I love the games but wish we could have done more. With BG3 a major complaint I have had is I find the whole 5E system to be to loose with translations of race and class. I am a long time Cleric and Paladin player and would have much rather seen a more traditional (2e) styling been implemented. I have been vocal that I feel not leaving in the choice of Deity for Paladins was a mistake that needs to be fixed ASAP, especially since the dialog options appear to still be in the game so an easy fix, turn it back on.

That does not however, mean I am not having a blast playing a Paladin in BG3.

Kenshi might be a contender, dunno if that counts as a C RPG tho.


Thats kinda one of the reasons why I joined this forum cause it just annoys me more than it should.

This has to be the most overrated/overpraised game I have ever seen in recent history.
Even the previous highly praised games, Witcher 3 and Elden Ring, wern't nearly as praised as this and they both don't need a DE for the game to be actually complete. (Although I still remember people hyping up Outer Worlds as a Bethesda killer which then quickly dissapated)

I can only think that some/most of the reviewers (and players) only have experiences with Bethesda/CDPR games, who prefer linearish ARPGs and now suddenly theres a extremely high budget AAA RPG that does RPG elements they've never seen before and don't realise that it's just what cRPG's have always done (even tho this game really doesn't).
(Exceptions exist ofcourse but still I doubt > 1 million people have played a cRPG before)

----
(Might've gone on abit, sorry)
----

I keep seeing takes all over about how the game is:

Groundbreaking/Pushing the Genre -> How? Other AAA RPG companies don't care about this subgenre of RPG; Bethesda likes making infinite content ARPGs and CDPR (+ most other AAA RPG devs) prefer linear story based ARPGs. Even if they did, does it really do anything new compared to cRPGs released in the last 10 years?.

Setting RPG/AAA Standards -> The game didn't even release finished, it's basically following the same standard as other AAA companies, let alone Larians' own standard of the past 4 games, of release early, fix later. And it doesn't even keep up these RPG standards past Act 1.
(Personally abit salty about one reviewer who usually harps on developers that release unfinished products but still gave it a 10)

Choice and Consequences -> Theres alot of choices, but most consequences are either just an illusion, where the character just dies now instead of later (*cough* 90% of the Tielfling refugees if you save them *cough*) or they become a useless ally for the final battle, or just suck (Choosing the goblins over druids). There is no meaningful consequence on the main story (except the Hammer I guess), your character or companions. (Having no epilogues doesn't help this either)

Reactivity to Race/Class -> To BG3's credit, it does recongise your race/class... until it doesn't (Usually by Act 2). But same as above, not much in the way of meaningful difference, although there are definately a few that I've seen atleast (Drow for entering the goblin camp, Draconic Sorc vs Harpies). I mean, I played a Gith after a Half-Elf where I chose most Gith responses when available (except for murder) and my game ended pretty much the same way (except Rolan was bugged and the Tiefling children + Dex + Rolan's siblings were MIA)

In the end, all I can see from the game is it's exploration and combat thats rather enjoyable and the graphics + dialogue/voice acting/mocap.


See idk, I doubt we'd ever see a cRPG at this budget ever again (aside from maybe Larian), I doubt Obsidian/inXile is going to get $100 million to make PoE 3/Wasteland 4. Even Obsidian gave up on cRPGs and pivoted into ARPGs, especially when PoE 2 bombed in sales.
I mean, you might get those anyway, thanks to BG3, but with a far lesser budget + maybe some new IP's from new indie devs but doubt they'd be as popular (Too much reading lol, not fully voice acted, no romances, etc).
But I doubt AAA Companies will care to make any as ARPG's generally just make more money and don't have much risk attached.

Although, I am very interested to see how Rogue Trader fares with reviewers such as whether or not they suddenly care about bugs or gliches and especially because it's going to be compared to a game that, frankly, doesn't exist.

This comparison will most likely not be in favor of RT. Honestly, in terms of gameplay, I would choose BG3. But everything else is question. I feel a sense of completeness in the Owlcat games, which I can't say about BG3

'One of'. I don't think there is anything subjective about saying BG3 is on the shallow side of CRPGs, both modern and old. Exactly what it compares to and how has room for interpretation, but not that it is shallow. Part of that is 5e is designed to be very accessible, and the rest is on Larian. And 'it's deep compared to SOME non-CRPGs' is the equivalent of saying 5 inches of water is not shallow because 1 inch deep pools exist. That's not much of defense. Were you hoping for just more 'proper' RPGs or were you hoping for more attention on CRPGs in specific? Because you said the latter, but comparing it to general RPGs out of the blue like that suggests the former.

I'm looking forward to Rogue Trader, but I do also expect it to be a buggy mess on release.