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".

[His Divine Shadow]

Originally posted by NGNS-SWE ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡:

Originally posted by Merque:

"being too white"... is this an example of tolerated racism?
"..and his sausage party." ...and this of tolerated sexism?

well that is the issue, you would never see eurogamer saying they cant enjoy game x because its too dark. too many black people in it. and everyone knows that, also "EUROGAMER" claiming europe was never white is beyond absurd.

What

[Dorok]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Dorok:

She clearly never played any video game RPG in her life.

Heh, compared with proper CRPG BG3 is a very mediocre at best so it's a fair rating. Hell, even DOS2 better then BG3.

Ok you played at least some video game RPG but the reviewer clearly didn't, I wasn't saying more.

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by NGNS-SWE ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡:

okay, I take your word for it- I refuses to click on their reviews.

Don't know, the problem here is metacritic picking any review and adding it in the pool without considering the context.

right, and to be fair- I dont hold every gaming site/reviewer to the same standard.
Greg Kasavin for ex at Gamespot was a very reliable source, but random X person from random Y website? not so much.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Das Gurkenmann:

What is a proper CRPG? Baldurs Gate 2? The Temple of Elemental Evil? Underrail?

To avoid arguing about personal tastes - let's say that both Baldurs Gate 2 and DoS2 are better CRPG then BG3.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Ok you played at least some video game RPG but the reviewer clearly didn't, I wasn't saying more.

C'mon. Just start BG3 and try to create Conan-like barbarian MC. Do we have a voiceover for it?

That's a tiny example why game is pretty mediocre. Not bad, but faaaar away from 90+ ratings.

[pr1mus]

Originally posted by Das Gurkenmann:

So Act 3 is now rushed because you don't see some text in the credits where you can read what happened to the characters?

Originally posted by Das Gurkenmann:

So Act 3 is rushed because some boring companion quest is missing?

"so does cut content and an unfinished ending point towards Act 3 being rushed?"
uh, yeah?

idk man, maybe play more than 30 hours and actually touch Act 3 before defending the content that you've yet to experience yourself?

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Das Gurkenmann:

What is a proper CRPG? Baldurs Gate 2? The Temple of Elemental Evil? Underrail?

To avoid arguing about personal tastes - let's say that both Baldurs Gate 2 and DoS2 are better CRPG then BG3.

well BG2 definitely had a better party/combat thing going for it.
that chaos of real time (yes I know you can pause) having 6 party members fight for their life was epic back then. having turn based with 4 party members will never beat that- to many of us.

[Verde]

Originally posted by Das Gurkenmann:

Originally posted by Verde:

missing QoL features and the last Act is completely rushed.

QoL features is a buzz word.

No UI Scaling, no Colorblind mode, no Party Formation settings, no Pausing/Auto-Pausing options, no Custom Difficulty settings, no Shared Inventory space, no Class Progression previews, no Highlight customization options, no way to browse inactive Party members' Inventories (even in Camp)...

...is that enough "buzz words" for you, little buddy?

[Rommel]

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".

Since when is an 80 a bad score? When all said and done this game is
by no means a masterpiece Act 3 shows that. But it's up with the best of em
and I'm having a blast playing it. Just enjoy this great game!

[Mongooses]

Originally posted by ACS36:

Give the game 10/10 is unreasonable. It means it literally has no flaws. This game has flaws, even if it's good.

Pretty much always my view too.
Id put it in the range of 8.5-9.5. Probably a 9.

There are bugs, both game engine bugs and also game mechanic bugs. Less than what im used to after playing Pathfinder WOTR for so long but they're there.

The tooltips in BG3 are pretty bad for providing information to the player. A very easy one to see and compare are Solasta spell tooltips vs BG3. In solasta they tell you directly on the spell if upcasting does anything for it. Also not telling people what classes get at higher levels. A large pull to D&D games for a lot of players is character building/planning out a character. Having to go to a wiki to find out what every class gets at what levels shouldn't be required. It should be displayed in game!

Honestly the game length can be considered short when compared to some other cRPGs (Both Pathfinder games). Fully understandable with the graphics and voice acting for everything. But I'll be finished a playthrough in 60-70 hours exploring a lot. Pretty sure one of my first playthrough of Pathfinder WOTR with exploring was closer to 200 hours. Id have to go back and check my Solasta game, but pretty sure BG3 is a decent bit longer than that one.

Being a 5e game and leaving out prepared actions to me is so sad. I think that is one of the oustanding points that Solasta has going for it.

[raμza84]

Fair review

[Dorok]

Originally posted by NGNS-SWE ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡:

Originally posted by Dorok:

Don't know, the problem here is metacritic picking any review and adding it in the pool without considering the context.

right, and to be fair- I dont hold every gaming site/reviewer to the same standard.
Greg Kasavin for ex at Gamespot was a very reliable source, but random X person from random Y website? not so much.

There's no universal value, so a "guide" doesn't own any truth. Anf for finding a spiritual cousin, people are constantly evolving along their life, how could you possibly evolve bith in same directions or someone has a huge influence on you.

:-)

[Dorok]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Dorok:

Ok you played at least some video game RPG but the reviewer clearly didn't, I wasn't saying more.

C'mon. Just start BG3 and try to create Conan-like barbarian MC. Do we have a voiceover for it?

That's a tiny example why game is pretty mediocre. Not bad, but faaaar away from 90+ ratings.

Marvelous argument, perhaps you should avoid choose critic or reviewer as your profession.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by NGNS-SWE ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡:

well BG2 definitely had a better party/combat thing going for it.

Lol BG2 is definitely well know for not being that good for combats, at best fairly good.

Next time you want sold your RTwP nobody want anymore, pick a better example, perhaps IWD1, or with a deeply different approach with sophisticated companions AI, DAO.

[Oni-Lyrics]

who
cares