I mean, this is probably bait for these "Haters" but imma bite cause I'm bored and curious.
Personally, I morso hate the discourse around it rather then the actual game at this point; if it had been given a fairer score in the 80s (for a AAA game) and not hailed as this "new standard for the industry" or "best RPG ever" I wouldn't be here trying to find out why it is touted as such.
All I've found is that some people like certain companions, the "immersive-sim" aspect, whenever you get to use race/class for some meaningless dialogue and people thinking there are meaningful consequences.
Anyway, firstly:
Not really, in terms of setting said standard for the industry; the game released very buggy, as seen with the 3000ish? bug fixes across 3 patches and is still very buggy with new bugs cropping up from Patch 3.
In terms of the genre, not really. BG3 has a very below/average story compared with PoE or WotR and is definitely inferior to WotR for choice and consequences. It does it's one thing well, the "immersive-sim" aspect for about an Act.
----
And secondly, the crux of the argument of whether BG3 is this "New standard for RPGs" is here:
The strong sides of BG3: unparalleled player freedom (in and out of combat) for a non-sandbox game, origins, meaningful exploration, impactful choices and fantastic itemization that results in even more freedom.
(or atleast yours, but I see a similar sentiments all over the place)
Is this truely enough to make it the "Best RPG ever"?
Where there is alot more negatives; the average (maybe below average) story which is also abit of a mess, little to no consequences, companions are abit average (help up with good VO) and the unbalanced combat.
And out of those you've mentioned, I'd somewhat agree on:
- Unparalleled player freedom (in and out of combat): The "out of combat" freedom aspect kinda disappears past Act 1 as in useful interactions with "Speak with Dead" or "Animal Speaking" interactions.
- Itemization: It's definitely fun finding useful stuff while exploring that synergises with other items and whatnot to make the rather simple DnD system abit more interesting but does kinda skew the balance towards the player.
Disagree
- Origins: Outside of Durge (which could've just been Tav anyway), I don't find them very interesting characters to play as, especially if it's maybe for some extra lines which won't change anything in the story and the effort in making them would have been best used elsewhere.
- Impactful choices: ha, no. Most choice and consequences usually add up to getting an extra useless ally for the final battle, losing a merchant or the character just dying.
I'd like to know some examples where I might be wrong tho, where choices you make elsewhere can change the main or a companion's story which is what WotR excels at.I'd agree with "meaningful exploration". I'd also add the combat was fun (but not good) and Companion VO was good; however, that's still not enough.
