Lol it went from 97 to 96% on metacritic after Eurogamers 80%

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

These are the same people who gave ff16 a 60% and talked about it being too white, for the love of BEEEP dont click their reviews/article.
Oh everyone gives it a 10/10 then im gonna give it a 8/10 and so everyone clicks on my review to see "why".
dont fall for it guys- ignore these clowns.

ps! I refuse to click the review myself- just a heads up on their "tactic".

[Verde]

80% is a fair score for Baldur's Gate 3. The game is filled with bugs, missing QoL features and the last Act is completely rushed.

[Wokelander]

Originally posted by NGNS-SWE ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡:

These are the same people who gave ff16 a 60% and talked about it being too white, for the love of BEEEP dont click their reviews/article.
Oh everyone gives it a 10/10 then im gonna give it a 8/10 and so everyone clicks on my review to see "why".
dont fall for it guys- ignore these clowns.

ps! I refuse to click the review myself- just a heads up on their "tactic".

Ok cool story

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

Originally posted by Verde:

80% is a fair score for Baldur's Gate 3. The game is filled with bugs, missing QoL features and the last Act is completely rushed.

and ff16 a 60% and being too white?
nah its clickbait, they arnt that woke- they know what they are doing.

[Doozie]

Originally posted by Verde:

80% is a fair score for Baldur's Gate 3. The game is filled with bugs, missing QoL features and the last Act is completely rushed.

drama queen

[Entity]

I remember reading a comment on the site that said that Eurogamer would give it an 8/10 just to get themselves attention. Seems they were spot on.

[shroom]

If you take modern reviews seriously you have brain damage.

[Lovecraft]

I expect a lot more reviewers to update (reduce) their scores once they get past Act 1.

[B✪✪tsy]

The game is hyped, 85/100 is a more realistic rating imo.

[pr1mus]

8/10 is higher than i would give the game myself rn, Act 3 is Cyberpunk levels of broken for me and i'm not gonna ignore all the issues and cut content it has just because Act 1 was a 9/10 experience.

[RamzaBehoulve]

They are entitled to their opinion, but they have been clickbait trash for years now.

[Sterling]

Originally posted by Lovecraft:

I expect a lot more reviewers to update (reduce) their scores once they get past Act 1.

You are delusional if you expect any major review sources to amend the score they have given the game initially.

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

Originally posted by shroom:

If you take modern reviews seriously you have brain damage.

fair enough. I will say friends and certain youtubers are the best information- but gaming magazines in the 90s was pretty good source as well (...atleast here in Sweden)

[RamzaBehoulve]

Originally posted by B✪✪tsy:

The game is hyped, 85/100 is a more realistic rating imo.

If you start going that way, then Zelda TotK is just barely a 80. Alas, that's not how it works,

[Observer]

BG3 is objectively in the 80%s, Mass clipping errors, slow battles (ai often thinks for minutes till moves) I dont want to go on, since it could become an essay of why its 80 and not over 90

[Swans]

80% is reasonable IMO. It's a good game, in my subjective view of the gaming world it would get 70 - 75%.

It's a lot of fun and definitely has that 'just one more hour' factor, but it's certainly flawed and, in many ways, a missed opportunity for a really solid 9/10 CRPG.