"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.
