Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Why B.G.3 doesn't worthy to it's name! (Spoiler Inside!)

All the problems with deviations from the old lore, I feel BG2 wouldn't be worthy of the name by these standards. It constantly deviated and bent rules and retconned stuff from the first game and from the rule books, because like BG3, it adapts things to serve the story and be a better game, not to be a checklist for rules-lawyering


Irenicus had the best voice acting in the history of video games though. David Warner was a star talent (If you haven't watched his Hornblower episode do it, he's amazing as a villain.) He didn't need a good motive, BG2 was about how you get there not the destination, all he had to do was be menacing and seem powerful and out of reach.

BGI definitely had a certain magic to it. For example, it had a sense of exploration that was curtailed in BGII. I think BGIII did quite a lot of work to bring that aspect back into the game. (40 words)

The one voice that would be even better than David Warner, and his wonderful nasal timbre, is that of the actor who played Professor Snape. Gosh, even the way Snape pronounced the name "Mis-ter Pot-ter" was just electrifying. (40 words)

I'll say it again.

Not one CRPG on this planet lives up to BG2.

All the reasons you gave are not the valid reasons why.

1) Class / multiclass diversity.
2) Level Cap
3) Multitude of spells
4) The combat

What good is playing yet another 'visual novel' if the gameplay is lacking? People that primarily focus on the story are the reason why 99% of Western RPGs nowadays are trash, because developers don't need to bother working on the combat or anything else. If all you want from a game is a story, there are thousands of anime visual novel games you can buy on steam, or you know you could read a book.

Talking about generic, BG3 is the most generic DnD game ever to have been made, hardly any class customization, everything is dumbed down, most feats and class skills are automatically given.

OFC this makes the game a lot more popular - its easier for the masses and you dont need to sit down with spreadsheets and rules open on a second monitor to enjoy the game.

I literally dont give the slightest crap about lore or story in any video game ever. If the gameplay is garbage I wouldn't be playing it to even get though whatever lame story yet another typical RPG has with 'kill the demon, save the princess' or whatever garbage they come up with next.

I play BG2 with full custom party or custom solo and it remains the only game I have played through as many times as I have. I skip all dialogue options and don't read anything, and I'm actually currently doing that for most of the pointless lame 'waste 50 hours chatting to your companions' BS in BG3 as well. Like sheesh idgaf about Wyll's daddy issues already, just pull out your cock which he still hasn't.

Talking and story is the most boring part of every game period.

Actually I can think of a game that does live up to and match BG2 - Tales of Maj Eyal. No story all combat. Endless Dumgeon, combat combat combat. Amazing strategic turn based RPG combat.

I don't enjoy chess as well because it has any story.

Okay, folks. We can talk about this if we're going to do so in a friendly, constructive way that recognises that folk have different preferences and that's absolutely fine.

But if we're going to get het up, then it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

In case someone is actually tallying data on player responses: I purchased both BG1 and BG2 in a store way back in the before times when PC games still cam in boxes with big fat manuals and stuff. I feel BG3 is every bit a worthy sequel to those fantastic and beloved games.

I think some of the difference of opinion comes from people who didn't experience the development of DnD itself from the 2nd edition through to the 5th. One person's "dumbing down" is another person's "streamlining". I love BG1 and 2, spent days loading the box fulls of cd's onto my home computer. But I adore BG3.

I dunno. I started with AD&D 2nd Ed. and I’ll take 5E over that any day. I like BG3 a lot. It’s a very different experience from the first two, but I don’t think I would like it as much if it just felt like a continuation of the originals. All of the spiritual successors to the infinity engine games have disappointed me.

Crazy how OP can write up such a massive negative review saying it's not worthy of its name, yet BG3 is the most critically acclaimed game of the year, if not the decade lol

How delusional!

Or maybe OP has different opinions and criteria than you and me and critics? Not necessarily a delusion lol.

Dear Zerubbabel!

Thank you! You are absolutely right, my criteria is really very different!
Most of the dear players usually forgot (or don't know at all) that The Forgotten Realms is a fantasy world what started it's "career" in the novels! (but I already mentioned this, the first novel in the Realms came out in 1987 from this world's creator Ed Greenwood)
Implementing this fantasy world as a TTRPG, what use the D&D rule sets only came many years and many novels later, and implementing as a successful CRPG game is only happened at 1998 in the 1'st Baldur's Gate game.
So to said it easy and plainly: from cronological and all other logical viewpoints the Novels is the main stream and the main source of the lore in this fantasy world (why: because the novels continuing even this days "more than 35 years of lore in the lot more than hundreds of novels already" from many talented and respected writers whos the creator of this fantasy world), not the actual edition of D&D rule set or any game, because any of that came only after.

So if any developer team want to create a game in the realms, the first thing what they must respect above all: isn't their "own game's need" nor the actual edition of a D&D rule set but that lore from the hundreds on novels! And that's not a "rule lawyering" just simply to remaining true to the original! Which is clearly doesn't happened in here!
For example: if the original author writen the certain character with a certain traits or a certain attitude and in the game that appear as an exact opposite, that's incorrect, tarnishing the basics and from that point spread lies! (doesn't matter how insignificant is that in the eyes of others)

If the game is correct at least to that basic lore of the world, from that point in my eyes the game is good because the basics are good, if the game doesn't correct to that basics the game isn't good at all because "if the base is wrong the structure become also wrong"! (thousands years old and always true wisdom)

Badur's Gate 1-2, Icewind Dale 1-2, Demon Stone, Sword Coast Legends, Neverwinter Nights 2 was all correct to that basics, never tarnished even the slightest little detail. So they are good and worthy games! And after that the actual game is how detailed, how correctly follow the used D&D edition's rule... etc. etc. etc. is all just secondary consideration.
Neverwinter Nights 1, and Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't correct to that fundamental basics, and what a surprise they are full off incorrection mistakes and even lies, which tarnishing and wrongly influence the other element of the game as well, so they aren't good or worthy games! Simple as it is!

So I'm not against the players whose like the game just because they don't know this, I'm against the developers whose don't keep and respect even the basics, tarnishing the most elemental basics and spread incorrections and lies! And they do this just because "most of the players is in ignorance" or simply don't care about at all.
That's and that attitude is wrong, and ignorance is sooner or later but always backfire to the "ignoring" peoples!

Critically acclaimed by critics who have a vested interest in being positive about the game. Given that the decade has seven more years to run any claims for a 'game of the decade' are ridiculous and says more about the people who write such nonsense and the people who believe it than it does about BG3.

The actor in question was Alan Rickman. He died in 2016.

It's amazing how you continue to say Baldur's Gate 3 isn't worthy of its name and doesn't do anything correctly, despite Wizards of the Coast being the ones who approached Larian to create it, while also having huge impact on its development process, lore, and overall story arc.
So therefor you're saying that WotC isn't worthy of D&D, and doesn't understand it's own lore and world.

Seems reasonable.

Dear Noraver!

Wizards of the Coast (WotC) is a publisher company who specialized in fantasy and sci-fi, which is for now a subsidiary of Hasbro! (and I have no doubt they have a great lore about marketing)

The world's The Forgotten Realms's (and it's lore's) authors is the novel writers from the very start!

I find the game more than worth of an 8/10, so a lot of the criticisms here are either purely subjective or feel like nitpicks to me. Still, there are certainly parts of the game which could have been better implemented, such as Act 3 and the endings, but I have largely enjoyed my time with the game.

Congratulations on understanding how businesses work. That doesn't change anything about my comment.
It's a fact that Wizards of the Coast has the final say over everything within the franchises they own and/or manage. This includes both novels and games within the Forgotten Realms setting.

Wizards approached Larian.
Wizards was involved in the process of the storyline.
Wizards approved of the final product.

By your logic, Wizards isn't worthy of its own creation.
You're either a very poor troll, or someone so very disgruntled about nothing but a title, and stuck in the past. Perhaps you should stick to just playing Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 for the rest of your days.

I have much respect for the OP’s knowledge of Forgotten Realms lore. That said, for me, the more glaring reason (among many others, frankly) this game is not the proper BG sequel many of us long time, older gamers hoped for is overall design—we were hoping for heroic adventure, player freedom, an expansive and diverse number of potential companions in order to help tell the story in a way of the player’s choosing, etc., etc., etc. Rather, IMHO, this is a just another DOS game with a thin D&D/BG/Forgotten Realms wrapper. BG3 appears to potentially be an average to reasonably good DOS game (once Larian fixes most of the bugs), but it seems clear at this juncture that BG3 is a Baldur’s Gate title in name only.

Regards,

Hem

P.S. Gary Gygax has to be rolling over in his grave, and I doubt Ed Greenwood is pleased—even if he won’t say so.

Good game =/= good sequel. BG 3 can be a phenomenal game in its own right and a poor followup to its predecessors. IMHO the way the legacy of the Bhaalspawn is treated in 5e and in BG 3....and the way certain returning characters are treated, not to mention the extremely loose way Larian plays with the lore of the setting (whether you are talking about 2e or 5e, there are definately numerous liberties taken here) is pretty good grounds to demonstrate the validity of that position.

Dear Hemingwey!

You are absolutely true! Besides what you writed, is (just) the basics of every really good RPG game, tabletop or computer as well!
BTW Happily see that I'm not the only older gamer here! It's soo refreshing to speak to someone who remember the "Golden Age" of the game development, and know the real Realms.

Thanks for your kind words! But all of the knowledge (not mine, that's the knowledge of the creators) what I reciting about the Realms is absolutely available to anybody, if they read the novels they can become just as detailed as I'am or even more (which would be an even better outcome )! That's why always recommend it!
Besides, because among the novels have really fantastic writings, some of it is a pure masterpiece, those who try it the only thing what they can lose is his/her "soo rainbow colored among the clouds" oppinion about BG3, but nothing more!

Your P.S. is just perfect! I rise my hat!

Best Regards!

Z