So I spent the whole last flood-filled weekend on this, and this week I've finally reached Baldur's Gate. I've played it once before, but stopped somewhere in the third act. Now I want to finish it, but my feelings are mixed.
I'm enjoying it quite a bit, but at the same time, the classic Larian "everything’s connected to everything", and densely packed in a realtively small map, is starting to annoy me again. Every little fart from the first act will undoubtedly start to smell somewhere in the third act. Side quests basically don't exist: everything you do, or don't do, affects the main storyline. I get that they’re aiming for quality "choices & consequences," but it all feels so convoluted.
And most of all, despite their intentions and efforts, it doesn't feel natural or organic. It's still better than Divinity: Original Sin, which literally has fan-made maps on which level to go where, because there's basically the only "right" way to play. But even so, you get a ton of interconnected quests, and you have to think about what to complete when to get the desired result. Or, I guess you don't have to, and you can just play it however it turns out – but if you're going to spend about 100 hours on a game, don't you want it to end the way you imagine? Honestly, I can't imagine playing through it three times in a row just to try out different paths. I'm curious about them, but not that curious.
Connected to that is the fact that almost always, one path seems like the right one. If I get a difficult skill check, it's really obvious that behind it is the option I want to choose. So I choose it, and if I fail, the result is "you screwed up." Which, see above, doesn’t lead me to role-play that I messed up, but just to save-scum. Because "you screwed up" isn't an interesting alternative. I enjoy it in Disco Elysium, where failures lead to interesting and fun situations, but here it often seems like the result is just that I miss out on bonus info or the situation ends with an early fight which I wanted to avoid by going for the skill check.
Even so, BG3 is definitely the best Larian game I've ever played. Probably since it's BG3, they had to stick to certain rules and expectations and couldn't follow their usual formula completely, which I guess I'm just not the target audience for. I remember reading that D:OS2 is the best RPG ever, but for me, not at all. It's definitely not bad, but it's like a good meal that just doesn't suit my taste. Though, in terms of the plot, I didn't think it was that good, regardless of whether I (dis)liked the gameplay.
Where I think BG3 doesn't live up to the quality of the previous BG games:
The sense of adventure – BG1 and BG2 are just pure high fantasy in a Tolkien-esque way. It's charmingly naive, cheesy; you have to embrace it, or you'll get a sugar overload, but it's there. In BG3, I feel more like I'm calculating how to do things and when.
Pacing – BG1 is theoretically the same low-level adventure as BG3, but in BG3, we're already dealing with hugely epic matters right from the start, levels are flying up one after another, and we'll spend the entire third act at max level because the story doesn't allow for more progression. In BG1, it genuinely feels like a simulator of a beginning adventurer, and when we finally reach Baldur's Gate, it's a satisfying reward. In BG3, I think they tried to emulate something similar, but because it's so packed and intertwined, you end up exhausted after thoroughly combing through two acts just to complete something that's plot-wise pretty simple, and now suddenly a big city with tons of quests? Especially when there's a sense of urgency to head to the finale? Please, no. BG2 uses a different tactic; it starts directly in a big city and at a higher level. Sure, the main quest is urgent too, but what works is that you get plenty of options early on when the player is still eager to explore everything.
Companions – In BG3, they're a bunch of edgy teenage brats. Which is especially bizarre considering Gale is supposed to be an ultra-experienced wizard and a friend of Elminster himself, Karlach is a battle-hardened warrior who survived hell, etc. And yet (aside from their low levels), they all have teenage angst, make cringy sexual jokes, and deal with high-school drama. And their stories are similar. Karlach and Gale both have ticking time bombs inside them. Almost all of them rebelled (or have the opportunity to rebel) against some big divine/demonic/ultra-powerful authority. Maybe it's unfair to compare this to BG1, where the companions barely say anything, but in BG2, they're certainly more memorable. And there are more of them, so more options for building your party. Some can't stand each other, some you don't even have to recruit, and each has their own personality. In BG3, half of the companions' personalities are damaged protagonist-sexual. And their personal quests are all incredibly tragic, and incredibly unique and special, with gods/demons/etc.
You can’t really compare the map exploration either. In BG3, almost everything is tied to the main story, so it's about whether the player finds or misses some piece of the puzzle. In BG1, most of the content is entirely optional side adventures that have nothing to do with anything. There are maps you can wander around just to wander. BG2 is a middle ground – almost everything is connected to a quest, but not the main story.
As for the quality of the story, I’m not sure. BG3 is undoubtedly well-thought-out, but as I wrote earlier, it’s also quite convoluted. There are no side quests; everything eventually comes back around. Some things are downright ridiculous. Like the return of Sarevok or Viconia's role, which completely contradicts her personal growth in BG2, just because it's "canon." This sucks. Just like in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, where the whole plot leads to the tearing down of the Wall of the Faithless, but in the end, nothing happens because canonically, it's not allowed.