Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Genuinely curious as to what your point is. Not caring about something personally doesn't matter when the point of the discussion is something as unreliant on your own opinion as something's overall popularity. Especially when we can easily measure that metric with sales, reviews and overall player counts and retention. How many big budget/massively successful titles have to release in a year, even ones you personally don't care for, to acknowledge that its been a good year for games as a whole? 3? 4? 5?
That you guys are saying this year is crazy while also saying BG3 is GOTY, which is artificially making it sound better than it is.
This year has sucked. This decade has SUCKED. And you guys are acting like BG3 is so good when gaming is so bad right now. That's not good for gaming or for US. For both you or me. It sucks for all of us.
Yet we're praising BG3 like it's competition is actually good.
I'm not playing System Shock right now because I played the game to death and I'm now waiting a bit. Not all games have to be infinitely replayable to be great. I assume based on what you've said that you assume a great game and a good year for gaming revolves having multiple games that are so good people ruin their lives over them and play them for months before finally dying of starvation or having the lights shut off. Sometimes a great game is played once and then never again, because by virtue of that particular game's nature and gameplay. Like Sekiro, for example. Even though it didn't release this year its a perfect example for what I'm saying. The game is amazing, 10/10.
You could see all of the possible endings in just 1 and a half runs (1 and a half because you can do the "true" ending after doing the "bad" ending by siding with Owl at the halfway point). Most people who get to the Owl ending will go "huh.... that was short." then look it up online and see that they ended the game prematurely halfway through, quickly get back to where they were and they do the real ending by getting the Guardian Dragon's tears and fighting reborn Ishin. And then, they never play it again, because their experience was so good that they feel totally fulfilled and satisfied with how their play of it turned out and they don't wanna risk tarnishing it with too many repeated playthroughs. In a few years, they return and play it through a few more times with the Boss-Rush mode they added and then shelve it again, but that doesn't make the game bad.
And there we get to the heart of the issue. You're upset, angry at the world and bringing all your personal baggage and misanthropy into the forums in order to spew venom at people and make yourself feel better.
Not judging, though. That's a perfectly valid way to let off steam in this day and age. Go wild, brother. Hope you feel better soon, life's not all that bad.
Do you have a point? What if they were good? There a problem with leftovers?
Nice strawman. I'm not engaging with this level of dishonesty if that's how you're going to interpret what I'm saying.
We're done here, and your opinion can be your own. I mean, after all, you like Ass Effect.
As long as you enjoyed a game why does it matter what awards it wins?
You can't safely ignore millions of people just because they don't have what you consider enough knowledge and experience in order to give an opinion on something. The masses aren't the best at articulating and providing detailed information, but simple things like "good", "bad", "yes" and "no" are very easy things to get out of them.
The developers said that they pretty much worked themselves to death on this passion project of theirs, and that after this game they're gonna make far more small-scale projects, focus on their Divinity IP and (possibly) reduce the size of the dev-team. Yes, every modern CRPG attempts to give you branching paths that alter the storyline in meaningful or interesting ways, but to say that BG3 isn't exceptional in the sheer amount of things it allows you to do is disingenuous.
Call of Duty is not comparable here. Call of Duty is a series that is copy-pasted year after year with little-to-no innovation because its managed to capture a dedicated audience via perfecting a gameplay loop and formula that all but gets people addicted to their games. BG3 is not that in any way, shape or form. The only thing that is even remotely similar to previous games is the engine. Almost every other aspect of the game has been meaningfully (meaning extensively here) tweaked from the past Divinity games in an attempt to make something fresh and new.
You can't call me out about making an appeal to popularity when the entire basis of this particular discussion is whether or not this game will win a Popularity Contest like "Game of the Year." That "nuh-uh" was also not sent to you, and it wasn't in any way related to anything that was an actual critique. Someone was trolling me so I trolled them back. If you can't disassociate yourself from that other person I honestly don't know what advice I could give you to fix that. Edit - And if that was you, then what I said stands, aside from it not being related to you, of course. I respond to like with like.
The "only" consequence of slurping down the tadpoles, a major narrative choice, is just turning ugly? Are you serious? Did you miss the part where the vast majority of your party members except Astarion massively dissaprove and lose opinion of you? Did you miss the part where some of them require DC 20 checks in order to then persuade them to change their minds? Did you miss the part where it massively alters the narratives ending and even allows you to straight up commit sepuku at the end of the game if you don't wanna live the rest of your life as a Squidward? Consequence doesn't just entail the game directly punishing you. "You ate the tadpole, here's a bunch of penalties" is not good writing. Having the focus be on the interplay between you and your party members and the overall reactions of those around you while also allowing the narrative to continue to its inevitble conclusion (like all PC and tabletop games have) isn't a black mark against the game.
As for the alignment thing, I think you're a little misguided. Just because an entire race is Lawful Evil in the lore does not mean that individuals can't be something else. Drizt do Urden is a massively popular character because he's a well-written "good" Drow who broke the conditioning from his extremely abusive, manipulative and controlling matriarchal society. A good-aligned elven deity, or any deity for that matter, would happily accept him as a worshipper, because he's a good person. His past and where he grew up would just make him an even better success story that Corellon and his pantheon could wave around in Lolth's face to get back at her for what she did to the Dark Elves. "Look at this, Arushnae! Despite your attempts to pervert the drow, good and honest souls continue to find their way back into the fold of the Seldarine pantheon."
Just because the Guardian requires you to do something to save yourself and give you a better chance at survival isn't an inherently selfish act. Very few gods in D&D, aside from Helm and Tyr, would actually approve of actively choosing to die and leave power off the table. And even for Helm and Tyr, they would only disapprove if your actions violated their laws and divine mandates. Helm wants his paladins and clergy to be humble and seek no personal glory, nor to enrich themselves, but he certainly wants them to live and accrue as much personal power as they can, provided they excercise that power in a just and humble fashion while carrying out their duties to the best of their ability.
Tyr would also only care if you used that power in corrupt ways or if the specific nation you're in has laws against using mental magics against another person. I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate doesn't interact with Mindflayers enough to have a charter on whether or not its acceptable to use psychic abilities to commit good deeds that don't hurt anyone else.
The only god who might be genuinely discouraging of their followers being powerful and doing what's necessary to survive is maybe Umberlee. Its divine law in her church that you never become famous or develop an overly high-profile reputation, lest you take the spotlight off of her. Only she would punish you for doing something that glorified yourself or helped you stay alive. And even then she would only do so after the fact, if enough people heard about what you did and she got jealous. She also certainly wouldn't be averse to you doing something "good" so long as it served her aims.
The Gods aren't mindless automatons, dude. You're applying the alignment system incorrectly and you're applying the lore of the gods incorrectly.
Again, with the hag, that's a good thing. Did you forget the part where her former henchmen, if you beat her without killing them, say that they don't even know if she can die? Did you miss the part of her dialogue in Act 3 where she blatantly says you're not the first person to kill her, and she always comes back? She's an evil fae witch with access to some of the oldest and most immoral magics to ever exist in the setting. Cheating death, especially when Resurrection scrolls exist in the setting, along with priests that literally have a resurrection service, isn't that far-fetched.
She also very much does despise you for what you did to her, but she's also pregnant and, despite being a Hag, very much does care for her child. Even crocodiles and other vastly anti-social animals have parental instincts, so why is it so impossible to understand that a Hag, when pregnant and backed into a corner by a powerful adventurer she knows she can't beat, but that she knows can't kill her, would just ask you to walk away in exchange for not holding a grudge? She's desperate and trying to give you an out that doesn't lead to further confrontation. Letting the player decide whether they accept is a good thing.
How exactly am I the one nitpicking when you're saying there's both not enough choice and complaining about how in this one specific interaction, that you brought up, there's more than one way to resolve the Hag's quest? I'm not nitpicking, you're just incapable of actually refuting what I'm saying.
True. People need to stop basing their identities around games. Like a game or don't like it, but don't try to force other people to agree one way or the other because you need your opinion validated by strangers.
Those who preferred that game this year will vote for it. Those who didn't won't. It's as it should be. And all the threads on the "interweb" won't change that fact.
The GOTY is pure subjectivity as it's decided on an individual preferences basis and if someone enjoyed (or not) a game more than another isn't open for debate.
Btw, I like chocolate, if you have that much time and energy to lose, OP, try to convince me I don't or I may vote it for the taste of the year award.
(edit : Typo)
I envy you.
I'm a blowhard that likes to write out massive walls of text to get my points across: you made the same points with one and a half paragraphs, lol.