Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 is Trash

[mediocrepoet]

Didn't I just say that?

You did. The guy who replied to you contradicted you, indicating that he, specifically, is part of the many. Here:

Spoiler

 

[Imrahil]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

It has an oddly high completion rate for a game, much less for a game as long as it is. I just finished it & got the "All's Well That Ends Well" achievement, which you get regardless of what ending you got, just that you finished it. 22.6% have that achievement. That's kinda ridiculously high for finishing a game, given the sheer # of players.

So even though BG3 has a 93-96% positive rating on Steam, only a fraction of these reviewers actually completed the game?

Sounds like they enjoyed the beginning, gave a premature positive rating and then didn't bother (or couldn't?) edit the rating once the later parts became bad/boring enough to give up.

I... get the feeling you are .. are a dick, so carry on wailing.

 

[Morality Games]

And Baldur's Gate 2 is the only BG game worth playing in the series.

Fixed.

The fact they are RtWP games is a serious indictment against both that raises questions whether either can ever really be worth playing.

Their major advances and controbitutions to the genre are in the realm of adventuring/questing/exploration. I think BG1 had a better approach to exploration overall (wandering around with little context looking for trouble) but the stuff you discovered while exploring tended to be more interesting in BG2.

 

[Imrahil]

22.6% gets the "Finished The Game" achievement is large. Anyone who disagrees can go Die On That Hill.

 

[adddeed]

And Baldur's Gate 2 is the only BG game worth playing in the series.

Fixed.

The fact they are RtWP games is a serious indictment against both that raises questions whether either can ever really be worth playing.

Their major advances and controbitutions to the genre are in the realm of adventuring/questing/exploration. I think BG1 had a better approach to exploration overall (wandering around with little context looking for trouble) but the stuff you discovered while exploring tended to be more interesting in BG2.

BG1 had an open map and a sense of adventure. BG2 is made a like a themepark, is linear with no sense of exploration, and is all just high level mage duels. Was really disappointing after playing BG1.

 

[JarlFrank]

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

 

[Drakortha]

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

I mean, it's a game that's almost 30 years old at this point. It's limited, but the game clearly has the ambition to make it feel like you're venturing forth with your allies.

I still don't know what Larian was trying to do with Baldur's Gate 3. The start of the game when you're trudging around a sunny beach meeting all these wacky companions you feel like you're in a bad fever dream or something. You just want to wake up and get away from all of it.

 

[JarlFrank]

I mean, it's a game that's almost 30 years old at this point.

Yes, the golden age of gaming, you can expect better from that era.

 

[Devastator]

The fact they are RtWP games is a serious indictment against both that raises questions whether either can ever really be worth playing.

Their major advances and controbitutions to the genre are in the realm of adventuring/questing/exploration. I think BG1 had a better approach to exploration overall (wandering around with little context looking for trouble) but the stuff you discovered while exploring tended to be more interesting in BG2.

BG1 had an open map and a sense of adventure. BG2 is made a like a themepark, is linear with no sense of exploration, and is all just high level mage duels. Was really disappointing after playing BG1.

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

Yet lifting the fog of war and exploring the theme park (all made with 20+ year old technology) is much better than sucking the camera while getting railed by the cringe in the new installment.

To everyone saying BG1 & 2 weren't perfect (I agree), go play BG3. I dare you to try and do it twice in a row.

 

[JarlFrank]

I've always voiced my issues with BG1, but also always considered BG2 to be a much better sequel that improves on every aspect. It's one of the top 5 RPGs ever made.

Haven't played BG3 because it hasn't been discounted enough yet, and...

 

[MrMarbles]

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

I get what you're saying, but that's an incomplete description. The "exploration" is also a huge (for its time) number of available maps, with excellent ambient sound, non-telegraphed secrets, a sense of realism (no encounter every 2m), variation (ghoul ally, xvart village, adventuring parties, shortcuts etc) and some encounters that will murder the unprepared. Hence a sense of risk and the unexpected, hence real exploration. For exploration BG1>BG2.

 

[Drakortha]

I mean, it's a game that's almost 30 years old at this point.

Yes, the golden age of gaming, you can expect better from that era.

But that was 30 years ago. I expect more from the current era.

Everyone should expect more. But BG3 is the worst case of recency bias I've ever seen. Reviewers completely overlook and don't even mention what is missing from previous entries.

No custom party? No day/nights? No schedules? No world map? No problem! Because BG3 was that years 'golden goose' in the eye of the beholder that is gaming news cycles. You don't get new subscribers by panning trending games - you get them by re-affirming peoples biases in wholesale.

The news cycle about developers outraged by BG3 setting a 'golden standard' was entirely hypocritical and fictional. BG3 was just as incomplete and unpolished on release as any other AAA game with the only difference being those other games had follow up DLC's to further flesh out the game.

Why is BG3 exempt from the same criticism? Was it because Larian didn't have it in their virtuous hearts to bank on some well marketed DLC? Doubtful. But that's what the games media wanted everyone to believe because it's what was getting them clicks and new subscribers at the time. It's more likely Larian went over-budget or had management problems, or simply spent too much time and resources in early access to be allowed to continue. We still don't know what really happened between them and WotC.

 

[Iucounu]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

It has an oddly high completion rate for a game, much less for a game as long as it is. I just finished it & got the "All's Well That Ends Well" achievement, which you get regardless of what ending you got, just that you finished it. 22.6% have that achievement. That's kinda ridiculously high for finishing a game, given the sheer # of players.

So even though BG3 has a 93-96% positive rating on Steam, only a fraction of these reviewers actually completed the game?

Sounds like they enjoyed the beginning, gave a premature positive rating and then didn't bother (or couldn't?) edit the rating once the later parts became bad/boring enough to give up.

Sounds like someone doesn't complete enough games to know that on average, no one completes anything.

Personally I complete almost all games once I've decided to buy/install and start playing them (back in the day I tried lots of free demos without buying the full game, but in the rare cases I did buy I almost always completed it). I obviously would never consider playing BG3.

Maybe the average gamer checks out lots of games, quickly refunds the bad ones, and only completes the less than 22,6% that he actually likes. But why give the bad ones a positive review then?

22.6% gets the "Finished The Game" achievement is large. Anyone who disagrees can go Die On That Hill.

I'm not disputing the figure, but the sanity of abandoning games while giving them positive reviews. If the normal completion rate is even lower it just makes it more strange.

 

[Morgoth]

So-called Gamers build mountains of themselves tripping over this overglorified Sims game. Go figure.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I get what you're saying, but that's an incomplete description. The "exploration" is also a huge (for its time) number of available maps, with excellent ambient sound, non-telegraphed secrets, a sense of realism (no encounter every 2m), variation (ghoul ally, xvart village, adventuring parties, shortcuts etc) and some encounters that will murder the unprepared. Hence a sense of risk and the unexpected, hence real exploration.

You're overselling it. Like, "variation" is REALLY not the line of defense I would take with these maps I understand the nostalgia people have for BG1, I have it for lots of questionable games as well. But it's high time people admitted that its phenomenon isn't based on pure qualities of the gameplay itself.

For exploration BG1>BG2.

Might be technically true. At the same time I don't think it's a coincidence that BG2 dropped that aspect like a hot potato in lieu of some of the best and most atmospheric side quests in history of gaming filled with amazing encounters and rewards and not "go to a place X on map no14 (I think?) and bring me back an item, maybe kill something, or maybe not, I dunno lol".

 

[Butter]

Play Underrail and then talk about how great BG's exploration is.

 

[MrMarbles]

Play Underrail and then talk about how great BG's exploration is.

No question - totally agree - but Underrail wasn't under discussion.

And BG1 exploration can't just be handwaved away as nostalgia. Some have a preference for lower-density, grounded maps. Played through BG1 weeks ago and it holds up, whereas BG3 exploration is just a meaningless chore.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Play Underrail and then talk about how great BG's exploration is.

Play BG and then talk about how great Underrail's implementation of AD&D2E is.

 

[Butter]

Play Underrail and then talk about how great BG's exploration is.

Play BG and then talk about how great Underrail's implementation of AD&D2E is.

You won't trick me into play a BioWare game that easily.

 

[adddeed]

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

It makes me feel like im wandering the wilderness, going on an adventure, and not knowing what lies ahead. Sometimes i travel and dont encounter anyone, but listen to the birds and the ambient music. And its great.
BG2 disappointed me in that respect. It felt like a themepark in comparison.

 

[Old Hans]

BG1's "exploration" consists of lifting the fog of war in square maps with clearly defined borders, whose content is 90% empty space and 10% low level mobs.

It makes me feel like im wandering the wilderness, going on an adventure, and not knowing what lies ahead. Sometimes i travel and dont encounter anyone, but listen to the birds and the ambient music. And its great.
BG2 disappointed me in that respect. It felt like a themepark in comparison.

bg1 reminds me of an old school wilderness hex crawl

 

[Dishonoredbr]

Reviewers completely overlook and don't even mention what is missing from previous entries.

Are you really expecting the reviewers to have played or even know about bg1 or 2 ? Lol

 

[sithren]

People liked the newer bioware stuff and then BG3 cause of the romance. That's it. I don't know why people dance around it. It's the romance. If you want your RPG to sell, include tons of romance options. Now pay me.

 

[Skinwalker]

Still proud to have never played anything from Latrine Studios, ever (except about 15 minutes of one of the Debile Debilities, which was enough to bore me to death).

 

[Drakortha]

Reviewers completely overlook and don't even mention what is missing from previous entries.

Are you really expecting the reviewers to have played or even know about bg1 or 2 ? Lol

I suppose knowing the source material of what they're reviewing is too much to expect from them. They'd rather parrot popular headlines for clicks and likes.

Like this baffoon



Listening to this wanker rant for 10 minutes about how Larian made BG3 with love just makes you want to chuck. It's a total obfuscation of reality.

This twat claims that Larian was passionate about Baldur's Gate and that is why they purchased the rights to make BG3 from WotC. Apparently this is proof of Larian's passion and love. This is like claiming Bethesda are passionate about Fallout because they bought the rights from Interplay. Because it's not like Bethesda saw the value in the brand name or anything and thought they could make lots of money. No way! Fallout 3 was made with nothing but LOVE! Why else would they make a Fallout game???

This begs the question; do this autists feel even an ounce of cognitive dissonance from his shit takes? Or is he just completely stupid?