Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 is Trash

[Fedora Master]

A lot would be better if D&D went back its roots.

Larian should have used the MYFAROG settings instead of gay 5E DnD.

They'd manage to make that gay too

 

[Devastator]

This is a fun thread. Here's my impression as I've been playing it lately and I've just started act 3. To expand upon what I mentioned in the 2024 played games thread, where I gave it a 6.5/10:

1. The story is decent. I like how the Dead Three seem to be behind the events so far (or rather, it's their cults).
2. The pacing is overall pretty shit. I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe break it down into more chapters and use less shit level design.
3. The camera is beyond awful. I hate everything about it.
4. I don’t like the level design that much. Outdoors are too scattered, with a bunch of redundant roads that overlap for no reason. Some areas look like you could travel to them from afar, but you can't. Indoors have too much useless clutter, which is a nightmare for someone like me who likes to rummage through almost everything. The awful camera just makes this worse.
5. Dialogue is a weird mix of actually good content and downright cringe-worthy stuff. The fact that the voice acting is great helps a bit but solves nothing. Also, when replying in conversations, I often find my options lacking. Even if there are five or more choices, they often don’t let me say what I really want to. Pretty disappointing.
6. After a year, the game is still very technically unpolished. It still doesn’t have adjustable font sizes for all fonts (like item descriptions). I’ve played the game on my desktop and my laptop, and it’s fine. But on an HTPC, the font would be too small. And people with any sort of vision issues can just fuck off and die, apparently. What can’t be fixed are the shit aspects of the engine. When you have a moderate amount of items picked up (500+), it takes a second or more to load that inventory on a fucking 13900K with an unlimited TDP. And 500 isn't much (100 camping supplies, 100 ingredients, 50 potions, 50 equipment pieces saved for later, 50 ammo and throwables, 50 scrolls, 50 keys, and 50 misc items). Baldur’s Gate 2 would load a bag of holding with 5,000 items instantaneously on a shit-tier single-core CPU from eons ago. Gold fucking standard, my ass.
7. The UI overall leaves a lot to be desired, and a lot of things need to be fixed by mods. For example: Better Containers, Better Context Menu, Better Hotbar, Better Character and Party Panel, Better Map, Better Split Item, Better Target Info, Better Tooltips, Better Topbar, Better Trade Menu... DOES THIS SEEM NORMAL TO ANYONE? What were they doing all this time since release?
8. The world visuals are good but nothing special. I play at 4K, max settings, with DLSS set to Quality, and it’s not something that blows me away—it’s simply fine. Maybe it’s all a bit too colorful and cartoony. I did turn off God Rays and Bloom because I didn’t like the way those effects made the game look, which is another indication that I found something lacking in the design itself. I thought the NPC visuals were pretty well done, though. Whether it’s undead, goblins, or Shart's cake, it’s fun to look at. My character is a Bronze Dragonborn (Sorc), and I can’t help but chuckle in cutscenes because he looks so ridiculous and out of this world with his shiny scales.
9. Lots of minor stuff one could complain about. Like world NPCs never shutting up and repeating their lines forever (leftover cancer from DOS). When you want to take a nap, someone always wants to fuck you, suck your blood, or talk to you about their feelings. What happened to the good old rest function?

Anyway, I would say the game is very far from perfect. It’s DOS3 in spirit and BG3 in name only. But I can’t claim it’s not worth playing, even if only once.

I finally arrived in the actual city about five days ago, and my path took me almost directly to the Elfsong Tavern. When I think about playing the game now, my reaction is that I would rather do anything else, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think I've fully fatigued myself, so I need to take a break of about 9 to 12 months. I'm at a pretty perfect spot to just park the game for a long while.

I wouldn't change anything about my impressions above, but maybe I've been too generous in giving it a 6.5/10, considering I can't force myself to finish it without an unusually long break. I still don't think it's a bad game, but it definitely leaves a lot to be desired. The idea that it got such good reviews only because other comparative games are so bad makes a lot of sense now. It’s so funny in retrospect how some people have been saying it’s not only a gold standard but also an anomaly that other studios can’t realistically replicate.

I'm basically playing as a completionist (within the choices I've made), which has probably contributed to my fatigue. Since I realized quite early that I’ll probably never want to replay this, I figured I might as well see everything it has to offer. I could just speed my way to the ending, but what would be the point? I never enjoy speeding through games. So I'll either pick it up again properly after a good while or in the worst case just forget about it.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

but also an anomaly that other studios can’t realistically replicate.

It can't be replicate because all triple A rpg studio fucking sucks and the smaller studios that are willing to make something similar, don't have the money (and years of experiences) necessary to include all the bells and whistles that wowed people into trying it.

Act3 is a total slog, especially if you hit level 12 fast, then it's slog of okay at best, quests followed by no reward or progression until the end of the game.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Even if all the criticism I had for BG3 over the last few years (about its control scheme, its mechanics, its writing, its characters, its structure/map layout, etc), I have to say this thread has to be peak codex autism or pretty close to it and the opening post is downright delusional.

 

[Drakortha]

Even if all the criticism I had for BG3 over the last few years (about its control scheme, its mechanics, its writing, its characters, its structure/map layout, etc), I have to say this thread has to be peak codex autism or pretty close to it and the opening post is downright delusional.

So you're saying everything in the OP about BG3 is wrong and untrue? Let's see, then. I'll compact the entire OP down into simple bullet points for you, since you seem to be having a comprehension issue.

-The aesthetic and graphics appear identical to the Original Sin games (asset flip)
-There's no world map.
-The levels are linear in how you are railroaded into encounters
-The turn based combat is derivative, slow, and tedious.
-The writing is dogshit
-Camera is abhorent, so are the graphics and controls, including pop in and butt ugly LOD's.
-No Day/Night cycles
-Larian are not passionate despite popular opinion, because even after 10 years of increasing budget and team size, they still haven't made the game they promised in their original kickstarter.

Let me know if any of this is untrue or downright delusional as you claim.

 

[Sergio]

I found the combat to be okay, especially because I kept finding ways to exploit the shit out of it with overpowered stuff. It is an improvement over "buff the shit out of your team and right click everything to death".

I liked some of the characters and I think the game does have a few memorable moments, so I wouldn't call writing "dogshit". Not spectacular maybe but not THAT bad. What I didn't like was that every origin character is deep down just a gross, sick fuck.

Also fuck day/night cycles I hate this shit, it just wastes my time. Yes, not having them but still putting time limits on some quests is stupid too.

 

[Drakortha]

so I wouldn't call writing "dogshit". Not spectacular maybe but not THAT bad.

One example of the writing is when you stumble into a secret thieves den. The boss of the thieves then gives you a quest and when you ask her why you should care, she responds "because we didn't just kill you when you arrived. so you kinda owe us". It was so compelling that I uninstalled the game the very next moment.

 

[Old Hans]

so I wouldn't call writing "dogshit". Not spectacular maybe but not THAT bad.

One example of the writing is when you stumble into a secret thieves den. The boss of the thieves then gives you a quest and when you ask her why you should care, she responds "because we didn't just kill you when you arrived. so you kinda owe us". It was so compelling that I uninstalled the game the very next moment.

The thieves guild felt like I was on one of those themed Disney tours. That place was about as threatening as stumbling onto Peter Pan and his gang of 10 year olds

 

[Drakortha]

The thieves guild felt like I was on one of those themed Disney tours.

That was the whole game up to that point.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Even if all the criticism I had for BG3 over the last few years (about its control scheme, its mechanics, its writing, its characters, its structure/map layout, etc), I have to say this thread has to be peak codex autism or pretty close to it and the opening post is downright delusional.

So you're saying everything in the OP about BG3 is wrong and untrue?

Most of it.
And yes, I'm saying that there's being critical and there's being retarded.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Ok, now that I have some time I'm willing to go over the individual points.

-The aesthetic and graphics appear identical to the Original Sin games (asset flip)

It literally does not.
In fact one of the most common, recurring comments when the Early Access launched (even on this forum) was what an improvement the quality of the assets used was over DOS 2 (with creature models and animations in particular).

-The levels are linear in how you are railroaded into encounters

Not really.
There are problems with the way the game world is designed and structured (I call it "the diorama effect", where the entire gaming world loops on itself so tightly and every corner of the map feel more like a series of vignettes rather than an actual physical place) but excessive linearity is not really an issue.
Most of the situations/encounters on the game can be approached by multiple angles and in different orders and what's more important, from time to time the game ACKNOWLEDGES these differences.

-The turn based combat is derivative, slow, and tedious.

It's one of the best on the market for turn-based games.
In terms of visual presentation, of PACING (animations curated enough to be MOSTLY good looking but also fast enough to not be tedious) and the core system used, D&D is very well-tested.
The implementation may be less than perfect and arguably almost everything Larian touched from the baseline was a change for the worst, but the differences are not that impactful all things considered.

-The writing is dogshit

A mixed bag.
Some part are arguably almost good, other close to be atrocious. I've surely seen worse in any case.
hell, there was probably worse even among some of the titles that you retards count as your favorites.

-Camera is abhorent, so are the graphics and controls, including pop in and butt ugly LOD's.

Well, on this point you are preaching to the choir.
I fucking loathe Larian's default control scheme and I spent years complaining about it. Since DOS 1 in fact.

-No Day/Night cycles

Disappointing, yes.
Especially for a Baldur's Gate game.
But there are more games in the same group than exceptions.

Strange to see the Codex making a stink about this point, though, given that when I was complaining about what a disappointment this choice was during the EA most of the posters in this board were dismissing the day/night cycle as pointless eye candy with hardly any impact on rthe game.

-Larian are not passionate despite popular opinion, because even after 10 years of increasing budget and team size, they still haven't made the game they promised in their original kickstarter.

For someone who claimed for 20 years to be in love with Ultima and to aspire to make "the greatest RPG to dwarf them all" Swen Vincke surely seem to consider a lot of the features that made that saga a classic something very easy to give up to...

To sum it up, yeah, I think you are full of shit. And so are most of the recurring posters in this thread.

 

[Drakortha]

-The aesthetic and graphics appear identical to the Original Sin games (asset flip)

It literally does not.
In fact one of the most common, recurring comments when the Early Access launched (even on this forum) was what an improvement the quality of the assets used was over DOS 2 (with creature models and animations in particular).

It literally does.

Please tell me the difference in aesthetic and graphics that you see in these 2 images?

How can you tell these games apart without looking at their UI's? You can scarcely tell the difference because they use identical colour palettes, with the biggest giveaway being they adjusted colour saturation and contrast slightly to make BG3 'Appear' darker and grittier. Like one of those ENB mods for Skyrim. This is why people commonly call it Divinity Sin 3 because most people can't even tell they're looking at a different game at a glance.

-The levels are linear in how you are railroaded into encounters

Not really.
There are problems with the way the game world is designed and structured (I call it "the diorama effect", where the entire gaming world loops on itself so tightly and every corner of the map feel more like a series of vignettes rather than an actual physical place) but excessive linearity is not really an issue.
Most of the situations/encounters on the game can be approached by multiple angles and in different orders and what's more important, from time to time the game ACKNOWLEDGES these differences.

Yes really.

The linearity in BG3 is excessive. Compared to Baldur's Gate 1 where you at least have room to move with your party in the wilderness where you can choose to follow the road or take a shortcut through open wilderness. Where are the open areas in BG3? There's none. Not to mention the complete omission of a world map. Exploring in BG3 is like driving down a road and deciding to turn left or right at the next set of lights. Or choosing to walk through Door A, B, C, D, etc.. Add as many doors as you like; you are still being railroaded even if you can choose which order you want to open those doors.

-The writing is dogshit

A mixed bag.
Some part are arguably almost good, other close to be atrocious. I've surely seen worse in any case.
hell, there was probably worse even among some of the titles that you retards count as your favorites.

It's fucking dogshit mate. Almost Good / Atrocious is not what I'd call a 'mixed bag'. Unless we're talking about a mixed bag of shit.

-No Day/Night cycles

Disappointing, yes.
Especially for a Baldur's Gate game.
But there are more games in the same group than exceptions.

Strange to see the Codex making a stink about this point, though, given that when I was complaining about what a disappointment this choice was during the EA most of the posters in this board were dismissing the day/night cycle as pointless eye candy with hardly any impact on rthe game.

There's no excuse for BG3 not to have Day/Night cycles and I've been the loudest on this forum about this issue since the EA. But unlike you I haven't reserved myself to just feeling "Disappointed" about it. That's a defeatist attitude you have. Larian deserved to be criticized for omitting this feature from Original Sin 2, let alone BG3! But you lowered your standards. Good for you.

For someone who claimed for 20 years to be in love with Ultima and to aspire to make "the greatest RPG to dwarf them all" Swen Vincke surely seem to consider a lot of the features that made that saga a classic something very easy to give up to...

To sum it up, yeah, I think you are full of shit. And so are most of the recurring posters in this thread.

Swen Vincke is a con man along the same vein as Peter Molyneux and Todd Howard and he deserves that reputation just as much.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

It literally does.

You must be fucking blind. And I mean on top of also being a dimwit.

I'm not surprised syphilitic mongoloids like Jaekl are on your side of the argument, incidentally.

How can you tell these games apart without looking at their UI's?

By looking at more than 4 square meters of rocky pavement, for example.

It's fucking dogshit mate. Almost Good / Atrocious is not what I'd call a 'mixed bag'.

"Some parts were good, some weren't" is the literal definition of a mixed bag.

 

[Drakortha]

It literally does.

You must be fucking blind. And I mean on top of also being a dimwit.

I'm not surprised syphilitic mongoloids like Jaekl are on your side of the argument, incidentally.

How can you tell these games apart without looking at their UI's?

By looking at more than 4 square meters of rocky pavement, for example.

It's fucking dogshit mate. Almost Good / Atrocious is not what I'd call a 'mixed bag'.

"Some parts were good, some weren't" is the literal definition of a mixed bag.

So do you want to argue about individual pebbles on the ground? Semantics won't win you the argument.

BG3 is a piece of garbage and always will be. Boohoo! Go cry about it in the corner, Larian fag.

Also, rating posts alongside replying is what spastics do. Keep hitting those buttons, you retard.

 

[jaekl]

Thank you to all the good men who are defending the gayest game of 2024 from the haters, it's absolutely dreadful the mean stuff they're saying about this highly prestigious product.

read it and weep, chuds!!