BG3 is the highest rated game of 2023 on metacritic.

[White Knuckle]

It currently sits at 97 on metracritic.

Additionally, it's in the top 10 peak steam player count of all time, and has greatly outdone expectations financially.

Like it or hate it, it's been a massive success and is even the most pre-ordered game on PSN.

[White Knuckle]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Data_Vizard:

You're arguing functionality, but also asking "why it is important as a consumer."

I am only speaking to the consumer portion. I would much rather support a game that feels complete over battle pass/constant DLC nonsense. Additionally, I never expected CRPGs to be very popular, so that means we can expect more in the future (even if it's not from Larian).

I can't explain it much more clearly. Just re-read what I have written if you're still lost.

ah i get what your trying to say but sadly i do not think it matters.

this game doing well does not really mean anything to other games getting rid of loot boxes or battle passes, because this game doing well doesn't mean other people won't buy the games you would be condemning either, they both can do well and both will contuine to exist.

as for the popular remark: turn based rpgs have always been pretty insanely popular, even early day final fantasy games really took off, but even more recent games like pathfinder or pillars added in turn based features in their sequels.

Fair enough. I understand your point of view a bit better now. I also re-read my posts and they came across a little conceding, so I do apologize.

[Azyle]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan:

User scores should be taken with a grain of salt, on the first page there's a 0 because of genital customisation.

sure, i dont deny that, but the same can be said about "official" reviews.

no matter what theirs gonna be a bias.

but whats more accurate, a 95% review by 14 people, or a 93% review by 2000 (for metacritic) or 100k for steam?

by and large when you start getting into the 10's of thousands of reviews your data can tell a good picture even with the extreme outliers.

I would trust official reviews on MC over User scores ANY day of the week.

As for the score. Very impressive but likely will drop (not that it makes ANY difference in this game's quality.) Its REALLY hard for games to go above 95 on MC, think this game lands at 95 or 96 by the end.

[zero]

Originally posted by Azyle:

Originally posted by zero:

sure, i dont deny that, but the same can be said about "official" reviews.

no matter what theirs gonna be a bias.

but whats more accurate, a 95% review by 14 people, or a 93% review by 2000 (for metacritic) or 100k for steam?

by and large when you start getting into the 10's of thousands of reviews your data can tell a good picture even with the extreme outliers.

I would trust official reviews on MC over User scores ANY day of the week.

As for the score. Very impressive but likely will drop (not that it makes ANY difference in this game's quality.) Its REALLY hard for games to go above 95 on MC, think this game lands at 95 or 96 by the end.

cant say i agree, paid reviewers are far too unwilling to ever review a big name game low, the worst you'd ever get is somewhere in the yellow catagory.

whereas people don't have any repercussions in their jobs for just stating their opinion, good or bad.

personally: ill trust a 93% across 100k reviewers over a 95 from a dozen. far less room for error once we get into that number of people.

[Syynx]

Originally posted by LivingVitae:

Originally posted by ULTRA:

Good thing: A mainstream RPG has co-op, and it was done by a mid-sized studio, so AAA developers can't ♥♥♥♥♥ out and act like co-op is impossible in their huge narrative-driven open-world games

Bad thing: There are many obvious ways that co-op could have been implemented better, so AAA developers (and forum cope artists) can point to these to inanely excuse a lack of co-op

By any metric Larian is a AAA developer. Consider Bioware in their prime had less than 200 people working on Dragon Age Origins, compared to over 400 people working on Baldur's Gate III.

They're a large indie company.

[SKASTOGER]

And just 1% has completed Act 1....

I constantly have critical bugs like infinite combat, lost 4 weapons because can't pick them up even with L3 or alt, NPCs stucks all the time somewhere, empty non sense story, poor, very poor dialogues, I killed whole castle with Githyankies, guess the world reaction? Zero, complete 0 word from anybody, guess the reaction from your Githyanki NPC friend? Zero word, I killed her too, guess the reaction from your teammates? :D Zero word :D All dialogues is basically just yes or no and if you choose wrong decision ( not what the devs have in mind) u get something like "okay, bye" dialogue. Genius RPGGGGGGGGGGGGG, 97% meta, 95% steam.

[Azyle]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Azyle:

I would trust official reviews on MC over User scores ANY day of the week.

As for the score. Very impressive but likely will drop (not that it makes ANY difference in this game's quality.) Its REALLY hard for games to go above 95 on MC, think this game lands at 95 or 96 by the end.

cant say i agree, paid reviewers are far too unwilling to ever review a big name game low, the worst you'd ever get is somewhere in the yellow catagory.

whereas people don't have any repercussions in their jobs for just stating their opinion, good or bad.

personally: ill trust a 93% across 100k reviewers over a 95 from a dozen. far less room for error once we get into that number of people.

I disagree due to people blindly trolling or rating 10/10 but you do you. It doesn't matter in the end. Elden Ring is considered one of the greatest games of the last decade and is like 7.7 - User Scores mean nothing.

[zero]

Originally posted by Azyle:

Originally posted by zero:

cant say i agree, paid reviewers are far too unwilling to ever review a big name game low, the worst you'd ever get is somewhere in the yellow catagory.

whereas people don't have any repercussions in their jobs for just stating their opinion, good or bad.

personally: ill trust a 93% across 100k reviewers over a 95 from a dozen. far less room for error once we get into that number of people.

I disagree due to people blindly trolling or rating 10/10 but you do you. It doesn't matter in the end. Elden Ring is considered one of the greatest games of the last decade and is like 7.7 - User Scores mean nothing.

92% across 522k people, in a yes/no system.

idk where it won gotd but it did win goty

[Azyle]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Azyle:

I disagree due to people blindly trolling or rating 10/10 but you do you. It doesn't matter in the end. Elden Ring is considered one of the greatest games of the last decade and is like 7.7 - User Scores mean nothing.

92% across 522k people, in a yes/no system.

idk where it won gotd but it did win goty

Right. I am not talking about Steam. I am talking about Meta Critic User Scores and why I think they are more useless than Critic Scores. Steam scores are great - for MC and OC I go off of professional reviews. Again, not that any of this stuff matters. Its all semantics.

[zero]

Originally posted by LivingVitae:

Originally posted by Syynx:

They're a large indie company.

Not sure if sarcasm but on par with the average size of dev teams that work on each Assassin's Creed game, for example.

i mean indie simply means self published, which they are.

but generally once you reach a specific level of wealth you tend to just go by AAA even then.

or could say both.

[Syynx]

Originally posted by LivingVitae:

Originally posted by Syynx:

They're a large indie company.

Not sure if sarcasm but on par with the average size of dev teams that work on each Assassin's Creed game, for example.

The amount of employees doesn't make them no longer independent

They're a large indie company that makes AAA quality games. Is that difficult to understand? (Though most AAA companies don't make AAA quality games anymore)

[Syynx]

Originally posted by LivingVitae:

regardless if they publish their own titles or not, they are by no stretch of the imagination "indie"

Epic quote. Love this. Thank you for this lmao

regardless if they weigh 600 lbs or don't, they are by no stretch of the imagination "obese"

regardless if they compulsively steal or don't, they are by no stretch of the imagination a "kleptomaniac"

It's too funny, I'm going to use this a lot

[Dean]

Originally posted by Mr Fred:

The casuals masses cant get enough of a super promoted extremely streamlined title with barely any depth to it, call the press... its exactly the 80% game I thought it would be and its all because they were forced to use the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 5e instead of a REAL ruleset.

Such a shame it would have been a 99.99% GOTYAY if made with the same budget and pathfinder.

But Pathfinder sucks?

[FissionChips]

Originally posted by gh0stwizard:

lmao, IGN Portugalia 100, IGN Spain 100 + just IGN is still "reviewing".

Okay, there is must be IGN Brazilia 100, IGN Canada 100, IGN Italia 100, IGN Poland 100, IGN Japan 100, IGN China 100, IGN Israel 100, IGN Australia 100. Where they are? Then, the rating will be 99.

10+ years ago most players have started to believe only to Steam reviews, to opinions of Twitch/YT streamers and so on. Only insane will take to account an opinion of something like BLALALAGN which is paid by 99.99999%.

So, the truth will come when there is be counted other 3k+ user reviews, in total around 5-6k. I've took this number in comparison with Fo3.

User score is sitting at 9.3 based on 2.4K user ratings. So the truth is not too far off with your criteria of 3K+ user ratings.

[Chaosolous]

My faith in Larian is furthered.

[Mathias Giovanni]

Yep. And so is barbie.

More M&M hate on sneakers and burning barbie dolls in the near future from the troll crowd. Wish the trolls would go pound sand instead of this forum. The market has spoken. You lose, the door is over there and please shut it on the way out. Because if I could I would kick it so hard they land in their Barbie burn pile.