Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Der Ersteller dieses Themas hat einen Beitrag als Antwort auf seine Frage markiert.
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
The Eurogamer review is one of the few that actually has some genuine criticism to offer.
GOG Reviewer in Question:
It's good that you want to be contrarian and find GOG is opinion affirming to you. I'm not judging.
Baldur's Gate 3 is near perfect, but it has performance problem.
There has been 0 cRPG in the last 20 years that has given you the widest possibility for role-playing, where dialogue react to who/what you are as it is in Baldur's Gate 3, I challenge -anybody- to mention a game within cRPG-sphere that has choices/game that react to your character as much as Baldur's Gate 3.
I think Pillars of Eternity 2 is a master piece, the best cRPG of the last decade, better than DOS2. But even PoE2 doesn't reach the level of the reactivity BG3 has to offer. If we're talking about writing, PoE2 still on the peak, it strikes balance for both cRPG fan and tourist who took break from playing TF2/warhammer/hoi/people who think the witcher 3 is cRPG, but good writing alone doesn't make a good RPG, PST has fantastic writing but horrible RPG because... you practically is not playing an RPG.
Also, Act 1 reactivity is not the same as Act 3 reactivity. And while it's not race/class-based, Wrath of the Righteous has tons of branching content based on your Mythic Path.
Solasta, the first game made by indie devs that raised like 300k on Kickstarter based on 5e has a way better combat system than bg3 and more faithful adaptation of the tabletop rules. Also has built in campaign building tools to allow fans to create full on campaigns with quests and factions and whatnot with complex branching dialog.
Yeah agree. The story and writing/non combat stuff isnt very good in solasta, but the combat blows bg3 out of the water. And people with enough time and dedication can create some sweet campaigns.
It would be interesting to see what that dev could do with bg3 money and an actual full DND license.
Because it's crazy how such a small team could get combat so much better than larian who's big succesful games (original sin 1 and 2) are all about decent combat while the rest (dialogue, branching choices, believable world) is very sub par (I'm talking about original sin, bg3 they actually upped their game on these aspects a lot).
It would've been better if the thing you think are bad wasn't so subjective - quest, writing, combat... there is somebody out there who think Black Geyser: Courier of Darkness writing is better than BG3, or somebody out there think that it's bad, and when asked to offer what they think is better, turns out to be garbage level-5$ amazon e book written by nobody with fickle ego-level of writing.
I don't want to debate about Patchfinder: Wrath of Microsoft Excel writing, oh you forgot to dip your ass in this river during this quest when this sub-task happen and while conjuring flying balls? Too bad, no this particular ending for you. Also can't get enough of those "fantastically better enemies encounter and design" of 69 AC with 420 BAB.
If you're struggling with Pathfinder combat, I'm pretty sure that's a you issue - you clearly need to turn down the difficulty. The game provides tools that allow you to deal with those things you mentioned; if you don't understand them, lower the difficulty (no shame in this). It's more difficult than BG3 (which has little challenge above like level 4-5), but the difficulty settings are far more customizable than BG3. And WOTR may have a convoluted SECRET ending, but the regular endings are still beyond BG3's near ME3 level of meaningless.
I realize that my post may seems to sound like an insult to you, but it's not. It's just in general and based on my observation.
Absolutely, I turned down the difficulty, turn off the crusader stuff, but it's still obnoxious encounter design - it's not hard, it's obnoxious, which in turn make the game only be able to be enjoyed by niche audience!
I bet Through the Ashes DLC (which conformed to Owlcat philosophy of encounter and enemy design so much) is selling like cheap hot dog and the review is 100% approval from playerbase! .. oh wait.
Oh yes, every game has meaningless ending, by what standard? None! Arbitrary! because I feel like it is! :) Moot!
For me Pillars of Eternity 2 is a magnum opus, it's perfect, the only gripes I have is that npc only react to my deed but not to who/what they are. Because I love it, I ignored the fact that it has useless Ship2Ship combat mechanics, I ignored performance issue that still plague this game 5 years later and the fact that it doesn't have enough accessibility feature compared to say.. Baldur's Gate 3.
I mean I love this game so much, I think Kingmaker and WOTR combined are hot garbage, compared to Pillars of Eternity 2. This game, which doesn't even sell enough to warrant immediate sequel.
And tell me you didn't play TTA without telling me you didn't play TTA. TTA is pretty much the opposite of Owlcat's philosophy. You are extremely limited in what's available, and you are encouraged to avoid combat where possible.
Not meaningless in terms of the ending itself. Meaningless in terms of choose A or B, and what you did up to that point makes little difference. You defending this is hilarious when the devs have acknowledged this and are working on an update.
I think Deadfire is fantastic, as are KM and WOTR. I think BG3 is just solid - 7/10 at present, maybe higher once the patches really start rolling in. We seem to agree that Deadfire should have sold more because of its quality, therefore quality does not equal high sales. So, why call OP a contrarian?
I'm not saying OP contrarian, I'm saying the other guy who refer to GOG reviews to be more objective than others as contrarian. They seek confirmation to what they personally belief.
They are against popular opinion. - and that's not a problem, I just think they should be aware that all reviews are subjective, what's objective is that the popular/general consensus think the game (BG3) is pretty much GOTY.
I think you too are contrarian, and yes, it's no problem that you think it's 7, it's your game, you've paid for it. However, the popular/general consensus it that the game is at the very least an 8.
I'm not saying WOTR is niche as in niche sales, it's niche as in only some truly enjoy the combat, if they were many who enjoys the combat presented in WOTR, TTA wouldn't get a mixed review.
If you read my intention there, I'm not defending Larian ending at all, in fact my argument was that all ending is meaningless until it does - like it is Dragon Age games, for example. I personally think that, until you get something out of the ending, whatever the ends told you is just closure. I personally think there is no difference between WOTR and BG3 ending apart from presentation, both solved the problem and characters moved on with their lives. --- but let's get one thing clear, I think WOTR has better ending presentation compared to Larian's BG3, but the ending itself, essentially meaningless apart from giving you pat in the back.... hopefully we get WOTR2 or something, would be nice if the ending I get, after hours in Crusader Mode, would resulted in something.
Did you not read what I said about TTA? It is NOT combat heavy; it encourages you to AVOID combat where possible and severely limits the combat resources available to you.
And you were the one saying how important reactivity is, but not for the ending? In WOTR, your choices up to that point can lead to dramatically different endings. BG3 just kind of ends in one of 2 ways. These are not the same, and the developers have acknowledged this.
React as in in dialogue and ways to resolve quest. WOTR has better alignment reactivity, but not much else, well, as far as I remember.
In case you think I think WOTR bad for that, I am not, they're different. It's more comparable to Deadfire in that regard.
I can argue that the "dramatically" varies ending ensures WOTR will never get a direct sequel, not that it matter for most perhaps. --- compared to Deadfire, or BG for example, even if it's not too dramatic, and basically it's just 1 or 2 choices that actually matters, the narrative can be much easier to be followed up compared to WOTR.
BG3 can have a direct sequel. Deadfire can have a direct sequel. WOTR may not.
Understanding that the narrative and variations needs to be tighten to ensure a follow up is possible is to understand why BG3 and Deadfire has more limited ending variations than WOTR.
You may disagree, and that is okay.
Back to reactivity (in dialogue), in my experience of course, BG3 offers more ways to resolve quest than I did in WOTR. in WOTR, It doesn't matter if I play a Rogue or Cleric, what matters is whether I have high perception or not to notice that I didn't need go through a hallway full of Balor to get a mcguffin quest solution hiding behind the wall.
In comparison, in BG3 in order say, jump over an obstacle I can sneak my way in as a Rogue, fight the undead in front of it as a Cleric, literally jump my way through the obstacle if I'm Fighter/Barbarian, and often times, talk my way out of it if I have enough Charisma, 3 types of Speech checks to slid my way through. In my experience, this kind of solutions are scarce in WOTR, you either -avoid- it, like you said in TTA, or fight through it, most of the time.