Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 is Trash

[The Nameless One]

Even though BG3's plot is an absolute shit soup, the poorly made and hollow nostalgia-bait inclusion of Jaheira and Minsc is even worse. Furthermore, why the hell would the game force the player through shitty cutscenes when camping, such as the squid's take at flirting the PC, when the only thing you want is to go back to trying to find an excuse to go through its plot?

Why is the underdark section so short, and so damn easy to go back and forth to? It's supposed to be a gorillion feet down the earth yet all it takes is an elevator or some inconspicuous passageway to get instantly there. In BG2 it felt pretty much like a one-way trip with every dark corner of it looking like it was about to tear your crew a new asshole.

Why the hell are maps designed as amusement parks anyway? Where's the respawning marauding beasts after you? Where's the hidden away stuff in the middle of nowhere? Fuck right off.

Classic BG had custom parties if you hosted a multiplayer game by yourself or used save editors, which many people did.

BG3, while showing moments of greatness in its first chapter, is overall terrible, it's decline, its overhyped, it's pozzed to the core and it's shit. And a day-night cycle is certainly not a meaningless feature you utter cretin. Especially not in BG with its particularly atmospheric nights.

I see that inability to read is common here. This too, shouldn't surprise me.

I said that day/night cycle is almost irrelevant in BG1/2. It doesn't add who knows what in terms of reactivity. It's mostly a graphical-nice thing.

Then, as your other friend here, you're unable to read and understand. That's explains also why you're also always fighting stupid fights.

Y'all just want to be fornicated by squid/bears when vouching for this shit.

 

[0sacred]

No, he considers Bg1/Bg2 great games, just because he forgot that the original games didn't have custom party either.

Except they did, newfag.

 

[Thalstarion]

Did you play it? Was it good? Why or why not?

No? Just a fart huffing trend chaser trying to score some cheap KKK with the same sad overused NPC rhetoric others of your ilk have spouted since before BG3 even released in EA?

Get some new material. Get a life.

Neither game has much in the way of a deep, meaningful story.

Granted, neither does Baldur's Gate 3 but it at least tried. I'm probably younger than a lot of posters around here but in my opinion older games are often better and more immersive because they don't treat gamers like they have the attention span of a gnat and need immediate gratification. There's real effort put into the flavour text, without every other item description being an obscure or meme reference for the Reddit crowd to gush over.

So I would agree with the idea that something being popular with the masses doesn't equal it actually being good or worthy of praise. Fast food is the most popular cuisine in the world but is neither healthy or even anywhere near as tasty as high end cuisine or even a homemade meal crafted with love.

Games are similar. Most of what is put out there these days is utter slop to give gamers a quick rush before they inevitably forget all about it and move on to the next similar product to consume.

 

[jackofshadows]

Classic BG had custom parties if you hosted a multiplayer game by yourself or used save editors, which many people did.

Same can be said about BG3

"Muh reactivity"
Don't kid yourself. Most so-called reactivity in BG3 is at best superficial with no meaningful consequences. Purely flavour. Yes, I was fooled by that at first too but then the disillusion set in and it set in hard.

Same can be said about most RPGs (basically about all plot-based), BG3 has just stepped up here. That said, they couldn't do even Arcanum-like branching plot wise before the ending.

 

[roshan]

Both look incredibly ugly.

They ARE both incredibly ugly screenshots because this guy is obviously garbage at taking them.

Lilliputian in size, blurry, low in detail and the choice of subject isn't exactly inspired either.
That's not strictly the game's fault, though.

I just googled "Baldur's Gate 3" screenshots and every result is really ugly. How come no one can take good screenshots ?

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I just googled "Baldur's Gate 3" screenshots and every result is really ugly. How come no one can take good screenshots ?

Wow, the articulate opinion of a frothing rabid mongoloid surely turned my mind around on the topic.

No, you fucking didn't . You are either fucking blind, completely retarded and/or delusional.
Most likely a mixture of all the above.

Otherwise, please proceed to mention your long list of isometric games that look better than both and give me a good laugh.


P.S. jaekl You will remain a pathetic spastic no matter how much you'll keep stomping your phocomelic little feet in a fit of rage.

 

[jackofshadows]

BG3 has its fair share of very bad artstyle choices, obnoxious character design examples, bad UI look and more but despite of all that, the game in general is looking great! To deny that one must be a grumpy boomer or something. The flaws of the game aren't lie there. This thread as if a museum of missed game's criticisms of sorts.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

BG3 has its fair share of very bad artstyle choices, obnoxious character design examples, bad UI look and more but despite of all that...

I agree with all of this, incidentally.
I'm definitely not fond of how... garish some of the equipment look, for instance.
Same with a lot of flamboyant character design, or the little care they put in minor aesthetic details (floating weapons glued to your back and no scabbards/quivers on your characters, to mention an example among many).

Still, overall the game is EASILY among the best looking in the genre of isometric CRPGs. In fact, except for Deadfire (which had its own share of shortcomings, anyway) and DOS 2 one could argue that there isn't really much that can even compete in the same league.

And I hope no one will even fucking dare to mention NWN1 or 2 in this competition, because Jesus Christ that would probably count for being legally blind.

P.S. MasPingon and here's another coward mongoloid. The only retarded here are the two chromosomally-exuberant spastics who made the tragic mistake of shitting you into this world.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

And of course not one of these raging mongoids spamming emotes every other post can come up with anything resembling a sensible argument.

 

[jackofshadows]

Bunch of spastics. Then again, if we were talking about more uhh serious medium like cinema. Then sure such garish obnoxious art-style would be out of any reasonable discussion and be discarded. But there's so few really good looking RPGs it's insane. Usually what you have is either good art-style which is still very rare (debatable) or good graphics fidelity (sure for some it's nothing but see above). Like, I get used to poor graphics fidelity since I was a nerd back then and such but that doesn't mean games like M&M3 are good looking. THEN AGAIN, it's impossible to argue with some guys here, they will tell you that maybe some character design in MM3 is indeed questionable but MM2 is where the shit is actually looking good (I too prefer MM2 to MM3 visually speaking but that's not the point even close).

The point is, in reality the graphics in all those old games is at best serviceable and was never the point. Hardly some were saying it was ugly either. But given this when some claim graphics (or the overall look, whatever) of a game like BG3 is ugly you begin to question person's in question sanity.

That said, I understand condemn for 3d in general. Deadfire indeed was such a looker you can only wish some other devs would do another game with that kind of approach to visuals and not another 3d.

 

[Litmanen]

No, he considers Bg1/Bg2 great games, just because he forgot that the original games didn't have custom party either.

Except they did, newfag.

"You could play with six friends in a multiplayer game and make a custom party. So in BG1/2 there was a custom party option".

It's so stupid I shouldn't answer to that, but I will.

In BG3 you can do the same.

"If you play it with friends you can have a full custom party".

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I just googled "Baldur's Gate 3" screenshots and every result is really ugly. How come no one can take good screenshots ?

Much as I'm loath to defend Baldur's Gate 3, there are occasionally beautiful environments and well-crafted monsters:

 

[VerSacrum]

No, he considers Bg1/Bg2 great games, just because he forgot that the original games didn't have custom party either.

Except they did, newfag.

"You could play with six friends in a multiplayer game and make a custom party. So in BG1/2 there was a custom party option".

It's so stupid I shouldn't answer to that, but I will.

In BG3 you can do the same.

"If you play it with friends you can have a full custom party".

Nope, you could host a multiplayer instance for yourself and play it, with your own custom party, completely by yourself.
Or you could use GateKeeper/ShadowKeeper, a save/character editor tool for it. Now called EE Keeper.

Both of these things were so common in the BG communities back then (as well as solo runs) that you would know that if you weren't such an idiotic newfag.

BG3 has its fair share of very bad artstyle choices, obnoxious character design examples, bad UI look and more but despite of all that...

I agree with all of this, incidentally.
I'm definitely not fond of how... garish some of the equipment look, for instance.
Same with a lot of flamboyant character design, or the little care they put in minor aesthetic details (floating weapons glued to your back and no scabbards/quivers on your characters, to mention an example among many).

Still, overall the game is EASILY among the best looking in the genre of isometric CRPGs. In fact, except for Deadfire (which had its own share of shortcomings, anyway) and DOS 2 one could argue that there isn't really much that can even compete in the same league.

And I hope no one will even fucking dare to mention NWN1 or 2 in this competition, because Jesus Christ that would probably count for being legally blind.

Can't agree with all your points but the ridiculous floating weapons - very good point, shit already grated me in Dragon Age Origins. Instead of adding floppy dick physics and finetuning the buttsex, give us scabbards instead, give us hip fasted longswords, quivers, stuff that makes gearing up for combat fun. Options for more grounded characters.
Clipping would be inevitable but who cares? Still looks better than floating weapons.

 

[Old Hans]

Can't agree with all your points but the ridiculous floating weapons - very good point, shit already grated me in Dragon Age Origins.

I remember the Witcher 3 doing that, and then someone made a scabbard mod and it worked flawlessly. It's amazing how devs can make super realistic hair physics and shadows, but a sword inside a scabbard is still out of reach.

 

[Swen]

Love reading these cope threads. BG3 is the new gold standard for CRPG's, the spastic seething won't change that new reality.

 

[Litmanen]

Nope, you could host a multiplayer instance for yourself and play it, with your own custom party, completely by yourself.
Or you could use GateKeeper/ShadowKeeper, a save/character editor tool for it. Now called EE Keeper.

Both of these things were so common in the BG communities back then (as well as solo runs) that you would know that if you weren't such an idiotic newfag.

So the game was designed NOT to be played in single-player with a custom party, but only in multiplayer. Exactly like BG3.

The fact that you could exploit a flawed multiplayer setup or use an external tool to create a custom party is the same as BG3 having a mod to play with a custom party.

So, we’re back to square one. In this respect, BG1/2 and BG3 weren’t designed any differently. Then, sure, you can sit here and argue all day about all the other differences and which ones you prefer in one game or the other, but when it comes to the custom party issue, no matter how much you want to twist things around, the games are structured in the same way.

But go ahead and keep insisting otherwise.

 

[VerSacrum]

Nope, you could host a multiplayer instance for yourself and play it, with your own custom party, completely by yourself.
Or you could use GateKeeper/ShadowKeeper, a save/character editor tool for it. Now called EE Keeper.

Both of these things were so common in the BG communities back then (as well as solo runs) that you would know that if you weren't such an idiotic newfag.

So the game was designed NOT to be played in single-player with a custom party, but only in multiplayer. Exactly like BG3.

The fact that you could exploit a flawed multiplayer setup or use an external tool to create a custom party is the same as BG3 having a mod to play with a custom party.

So, we’re back to square one. In this respect, BG1/2 and BG3 weren’t designed any differently. Then, sure, you can sit here and argue all day about all the other differences and which ones you prefer in one game or the other, but when it comes to the custom party issue, no matter how much you want to twist things around, the games are structured in the same way.

But go ahead and keep insisting otherwise.

Tbh BG1 may as well out of the box be considered a custom party game because there are so many NPC's you can pick up and develop(25), there really is something for everyone in there. And they are mostly classic fantasy archetypes.
Admittedly I don't have much of a problem with the party system in BG3 per se, just with the fact that they are all overtly sexual fags who creep me out. I didn't raise the point of custom parties and didn't read through the thread, just wanted to call you out on this.

 

[NJClaw]

Admittedly I don't have much of a problem with the party system in BG3 per se, just with the fact that they are all overtly sexual fags who creep me out.

I will never forget that time when Gale came to me in camp and said "hey dude, you're cool, let me teach you magic". I was excited because I thought I had finally gained his trust and unlocked some unique power, so you can imagine my disappointment when I realized he was just trying to put his peepee in my poopoo. I honestly felt betrayed, a move this low made me feel dirty IRL.

 

[VerSacrum]

Admittedly I don't have much of a problem with the party system in BG3 per se, just with the fact that they are all overtly sexual fags who creep me out.

I will never forget that time when Gale came to me in camp and said "hey dude, you're cool, let me teach you magic". I was excited because I thought I had finally gained his trust and unlocked some unique power, so you can imagine my disappointment when I realized he was just trying to put his peepee in my poopoo. I honestly felt betrayed and a move this low made me feel dirty IRL.

Yeah, I actually liked Gale a lot of at first. Sort of a grounded dude in this menagerie of exotics. Then came the magic scene and that ridiculous backstory with Mystra. He was clearly written as a "romantic" type of straight man so it felt off. I think the player even uses female animations in the romance scenes with him.

 

[Litmanen]

Nope, you could host a multiplayer instance for yourself and play it, with your own custom party, completely by yourself.
Or you could use GateKeeper/ShadowKeeper, a save/character editor tool for it. Now called EE Keeper.

Both of these things were so common in the BG communities back then (as well as solo runs) that you would know that if you weren't such an idiotic newfag.

So the game was designed NOT to be played in single-player with a custom party, but only in multiplayer. Exactly like BG3.

The fact that you could exploit a flawed multiplayer setup or use an external tool to create a custom party is the same as BG3 having a mod to play with a custom party.

So, we’re back to square one. In this respect, BG1/2 and BG3 weren’t designed any differently. Then, sure, you can sit here and argue all day about all the other differences and which ones you prefer in one game or the other, but when it comes to the custom party issue, no matter how much you want to twist things around, the games are structured in the same way.

But go ahead and keep insisting otherwise.

Tbh BG1 may as well out of the box be considered a custom party game because there are so many NPC's you can pick up and develop(25), there really is something for everyone in there. And they are mostly classic fantasy archetypes.
Admittedly I don't have much of a problem with the party system in BG3 per se, just with the fact that they are all overtly sexual fags who creep me out. I didn't raise the point of custom parties and didn't read through the thread, just wanted to call you out on this.

I don't have any problem with the open sexuality of companions. I avoid to go deep in conversation with those who do not interest me and try to have sex with those I like.

I killed bot Wyll and Lae'zel, I was trying to have sex with Shadowheart but then I killed her too for "bigger reasons" and then... yeah... that's it. Gale had a "No2 at his first approach and Halsin has never tried anything. Astarion was the one overtly trying to have sex and I overtly refused him.

 

[Drakortha]

So the game was designed NOT to be played in single-player with a custom party, but only in multiplayer. Exactly like BG3.

The fact that you could exploit a flawed multiplayer setup or use an external tool to create a custom party is the same as BG3 having a mod to play with a custom party.

So, we’re back to square one. In this respect, BG1/2 and BG3 weren’t designed any differently. Then, sure, you can sit here and argue all day about all the other differences and which ones you prefer in one game or the other, but when it comes to the custom party issue, no matter how much you want to twist things around, the games are structured in the same way.

But go ahead and keep insisting otherwise.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Why don't you spare us your horseshit?

BG3 was a highly anticipated sequel to a beloved series and people waited years for this thing. Yet you praise BG3 for it's shit design and missing features while you frantically compare it to an almost 30 year old game, completely failing to realize that Larian had those 30 years of game design and retrospect to build upon and they failed miserably.

So you enjoy BG3 for what it is? Good for you, man. But to those of us who had expectations it's a steaming pile of shit. So go ahead and keep insisting that nothing matters and that Larian didn't need to do anything when they made BG3. Just asset flip Original Sin and throw in some Dragon Age romance and call it a day.

 

[anvi]

Even though BG3's plot is an absolute shit soup, the poorly made and hollow nostalgia-bait inclusion of Jaheira and Minsc is even worse. Furthermore, why the hell would the game force the player through shitty cutscenes when camping, such as the squid's take at flirting the PC, when the only thing you want is to go back to trying to find an excuse to go through its plot?

Why is the underdark section so short, and so damn easy to go back and forth to? It's supposed to be a gorillion feet down the earth yet all it takes is an elevator or some inconspicuous passageway to get instantly there. In BG2 it felt pretty much like a one-way trip with every dark corner of it looking like it was about to tear your crew a new asshole.

Why the hell are maps designed as amusement parks anyway? Where's the respawning marauding beasts after you? Where's the hidden away stuff in the middle of nowhere? Fuck right off.

Classic BG had custom parties if you hosted a multiplayer game by yourself or used save editors, which many people did.

BG3, while showing moments of greatness in its first chapter, is overall terrible, it's decline, its overhyped, it's pozzed to the core and it's shit. And a day-night cycle is certainly not a meaningless feature you utter cretin. Especially not in BG with its particularly atmospheric nights.

I see that inability to read is common here. This too, shouldn't surprise me.

I said that day/night cycle is almost irrelevant in BG1/2. It doesn't add who knows what in terms of reactivity. It's mostly a graphical-nice thing.

Then, as your other friend here, you're unable to read and understand. That's explains also why you're also always fighting stupid fights.

Y'all just want to be fornicated by squid/bears when vouching for this shit.

I didn't even get far enough to see any of the degeneracy. I just got annoyed at how boring it was and not enough combat. And the few fights I had were boring and forgettable. I remember even crappy DoS2 more than any BG3 fights. Maybe I would like it further on but the constant running around and story crap was too much. I'm also mad at myself for forgetting about SpeedHack.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Yeah, I actually liked Gale a lot of at first. Sort of a grounded dude in this menagerie of exotics. Then came the magic scene and that ridiculous backstory with Mystra. He was clearly written as a "romantic" type of straight man so it felt off. I think the player even uses female animations in the romance scenes with him.

That's a problem with a lot of the recruitable characters in the game.
They seem to have been written keeping in mind just two things: their personal quest and their romance with the player.

They have almost no "content" related to developing a friendship with the main character, when on the other hand that should be the default unless the player instigates some form of flirting as a way to signal "Yeah, I'm interested in romancing this character".
You can't even suggest fucking Halsin to enjoy the party and have a drink without the werefag interpreting it as an open invitation to lubricate each other's asshole.

 

[roshan]

I just googled "Baldur's Gate 3" screenshots and every result is really ugly. How come no one can take good screenshots ?

Much as I'm loath to defend Baldur's Gate 3, there are occasionally beautiful environments and well-crafted monsters:

I think the bottom left one is alright. The others..... I guess I'm just not one for 3D graphics.

 

[processdaemon]

Gale had a "No2 at his first approach and Halsin has never tried anything. Astarion was the one overtly trying to have sex and I overtly refused him.

Astarion is more forward but the reason people have a problem with Gale specifically was because at launch there was a bug where if you ignored him the relationship would progress anyway and then one day you'd wake up and he'd start talking to you about your 'night together'. I don't mind the playersexual approach as long as it's mostly player initiated but the surprise sleep bumming didn't go down well with most people.