Ashgan
2020
Let me begin by saying that I love Larian as a developer, and continue to do so. I still eagerly await news of whatever project they tackle next. I'm not happy to downvote this game, but I must judge it based on my personal enjoyment and whether I would recommend it to others because of that. I'll try and explain why my decision is what it is.
I'll start with what I like: I think in terms of graphics and overall presentation, the game is a home run. It's beautiful to look at and is, by all accounts, a massive leap forward from DOS2. The more dynamic camera during dialogue also brings the conversations much more to life than in the previous games. I would kill for DOS2 to get this kind of facelift.
And that's kind of it, sadly. I don't want to say that the story or the writing is bad, because it isn't. But I struggle to care for it, and that's no surprise either. I don't like Faerun, and I knew going in that I wouldn't really be interested in whatever story Faerun has to tell. That's fine. I don't really care about Rivellon either. I'm here because DOS1 and 2 provided such a fantastic coop CRPG experience in terms of gameplay that I just cannot get elsewhere. The story just kind of happens and I am largely indifferent to it. I'm perfectly fine with that.
So here's my beef with the game: First, the dialogue system feels especially bad in this one, mechanically. I really hate that only the initiating character is relevant for the vast majority of them because it would often make sense to include other party members at specific junctures (often for skill checks, but maybe because their character would have something compelling to add, like a unique class option). The more dialogues I went through, the more it bothered me. It's even worse in coop, where you don't even see the other players' characters be physically present during the dialogue, let alone give your fellow players an opportunity to chime in. It's clunky and unsatisfying, and makes me feel like I am missing out on options every time. It also fails to create any sense of being, you know, a party - something I thought was core to the D&D experience.
The game also has some quality of life issues that, while easily forgivable in a more enjoyable game, do provide regular minor problems. The inventory isn't the most fun to operate (although I appreciate the search function even if it's very basic). I have trouble realizing when someone else is in a dialogue so I can listen in - I always felt like it was more notable in DOS1 and 2, never struggled so much with that before. Characters sometimes do really stupid stuff or path in unexpected ways. None of this is game breaking but it's worth pointing out.
I actually cannot speak too much about bugs (game breaking or otherwise). I've seen them, of course, but none of them were too bad or enough to deter me from playing or even really hinder me from having fun (aside from my last session where a Disarm move actually DELETED my rare and powerful weapon from the game). I think much of that can be attributed to the fact that I never saw Act 3. I heard it gets much worse in the final act, so that's unfortunate. I, however, gave up partway through Act 2 out of sheer frustration.
Which leads me to the principal source of said frustration, and the reason why BG3, ultimately, gets my downvote: D&D. I'll be frank here and say that I genuinely believe D&D 5e is a terrible system, both on the table and even more so in a video game. I knew this going in, but I wanted to give Larian the benefit of the doubt. I have immense trust in them and figured, devs who made such amazing games before would surely find ways to make a game based on D&D fun and playable. I was wrong.
Here's what gets me:
1) Restrictive Action System
I just don't see the point behind an arbitrary and limited main action / bonus action system. We already had a perfectly granular and working system in action points from the previous games. I know that this is how it works in D&D - my point is, it's not good. I also understand that action points would be a mess to track on a table (probably), but this isn't a tabletop. It's a video game. And it's not a good video game mechanic.
2) Concentration
It really limits the utility of a lot of spells because characters cannot have more than one concentration spell active at a time, leading to less choice during turns and a higher likelihood of just casting the same instant attack abilities repeatedly. Concentration breaking / not breaking is also a very unfulfilling, random and thus frustrating experience both when trying to break an enemy, or having your own broken. More on pass / fail mechanics later.
3) Vancian Magic
I don't know how else to put it: I hate Vancian magic (or whatever variant thereof 5e uses, I've been told this isn't "true" Vancian magic anymore). Rationing limited spell slots is reductive and boring. A good combat system should encourage you to use all the fun tools you have, not make you dread having to use them and make you feel bad afterwards for having done so because it means going back to do a long rest. Coming from the Original Sin games where varied ability usage and pumping your most enjoyable spells every fight is the norm, this feels incredibly oppressive and boring. I am of the belief that powerful abilities should be limited in their use through build-up mechanics (i.e. some kind of system that makes you have to build up to unleashing your strongest spells) as opposed to tear-down mechanics (such as here, where you have all your power available, but using them loses them).
4) Limited Builds
With a mere 12 levels and rather strict level-up bonuses on every class, the possibilities for builds feel quite limited. I don't want to rag too harshly on this because, in my limited playtime and exposure to 5e, I felt that there was "enough" freedom to do a bit of building, but I can easily see how I'd have exhausted the system once I played each class once. Multiclassing is often a harsh tradeoff that's only worth it in specific circumstances I find. For the most part, you'd be well served just monoclassing and picking whatever flavor of subclass serves your fantasy. I've seen much better class systems in other games (for example classless like in the Original Sin games, or the much more freeform class mixing like in Xenoblade Chronicles 3).
5) Binary Success / Fail Mechanics (ergo everything involving a D20)
I hate these mechanics in any game, any system. Failing a skill check and just NOT doing the thing you wanted to do, is frustrating and boring. Wasting an action on NOT doing anything to the enemy and effectively skipping your own turn is frustrating and boring. Hitting an enemy only for them to save against the debuff is frustrating and boring. D&D is full of pass / fail nonsense and I have zero tolerance or patience for it. I hate hit chances in any game (looking at you XCOM). BG3 is filled to the brim with them and it only gets worse with every D20 I roll. I have nothing but disdain for that die because it singlehandedly ruins BG3 for me.
And those are my feelings on BG3. It genuinely makes me sad because, as said, I really like Larian, and I think that there's a really fun campaign in here. Unfortunately, a problematic dialogue system and, above all else, D&D drags it down and makes it an absolute pain to play. If only it were possible to rip out the entire engine and insert the gameplay of DOS2 into this, I wouldn't be writing this - I'd be busy playing. Alas, that's just not something I can have. I'll keep my eyes peeled on any overhaul mods that might come out in a year or so, see how much they can salvage, if anything.
I'm happy for the success Larian is enjoying and I pray that they take their profits and go back to doing what they're good at, unburdened by the yoke of a terrible TTRPG system.
I'll start with what I like: I think in terms of graphics and overall presentation, the game is a home run. It's beautiful to look at and is, by all accounts, a massive leap forward from DOS2. The more dynamic camera during dialogue also brings the conversations much more to life than in the previous games. I would kill for DOS2 to get this kind of facelift.
And that's kind of it, sadly. I don't want to say that the story or the writing is bad, because it isn't. But I struggle to care for it, and that's no surprise either. I don't like Faerun, and I knew going in that I wouldn't really be interested in whatever story Faerun has to tell. That's fine. I don't really care about Rivellon either. I'm here because DOS1 and 2 provided such a fantastic coop CRPG experience in terms of gameplay that I just cannot get elsewhere. The story just kind of happens and I am largely indifferent to it. I'm perfectly fine with that.
So here's my beef with the game: First, the dialogue system feels especially bad in this one, mechanically. I really hate that only the initiating character is relevant for the vast majority of them because it would often make sense to include other party members at specific junctures (often for skill checks, but maybe because their character would have something compelling to add, like a unique class option). The more dialogues I went through, the more it bothered me. It's even worse in coop, where you don't even see the other players' characters be physically present during the dialogue, let alone give your fellow players an opportunity to chime in. It's clunky and unsatisfying, and makes me feel like I am missing out on options every time. It also fails to create any sense of being, you know, a party - something I thought was core to the D&D experience.
The game also has some quality of life issues that, while easily forgivable in a more enjoyable game, do provide regular minor problems. The inventory isn't the most fun to operate (although I appreciate the search function even if it's very basic). I have trouble realizing when someone else is in a dialogue so I can listen in - I always felt like it was more notable in DOS1 and 2, never struggled so much with that before. Characters sometimes do really stupid stuff or path in unexpected ways. None of this is game breaking but it's worth pointing out.
I actually cannot speak too much about bugs (game breaking or otherwise). I've seen them, of course, but none of them were too bad or enough to deter me from playing or even really hinder me from having fun (aside from my last session where a Disarm move actually DELETED my rare and powerful weapon from the game). I think much of that can be attributed to the fact that I never saw Act 3. I heard it gets much worse in the final act, so that's unfortunate. I, however, gave up partway through Act 2 out of sheer frustration.
Which leads me to the principal source of said frustration, and the reason why BG3, ultimately, gets my downvote: D&D. I'll be frank here and say that I genuinely believe D&D 5e is a terrible system, both on the table and even more so in a video game. I knew this going in, but I wanted to give Larian the benefit of the doubt. I have immense trust in them and figured, devs who made such amazing games before would surely find ways to make a game based on D&D fun and playable. I was wrong.
Here's what gets me:
1) Restrictive Action System
I just don't see the point behind an arbitrary and limited main action / bonus action system. We already had a perfectly granular and working system in action points from the previous games. I know that this is how it works in D&D - my point is, it's not good. I also understand that action points would be a mess to track on a table (probably), but this isn't a tabletop. It's a video game. And it's not a good video game mechanic.
2) Concentration
It really limits the utility of a lot of spells because characters cannot have more than one concentration spell active at a time, leading to less choice during turns and a higher likelihood of just casting the same instant attack abilities repeatedly. Concentration breaking / not breaking is also a very unfulfilling, random and thus frustrating experience both when trying to break an enemy, or having your own broken. More on pass / fail mechanics later.
3) Vancian Magic
I don't know how else to put it: I hate Vancian magic (or whatever variant thereof 5e uses, I've been told this isn't "true" Vancian magic anymore). Rationing limited spell slots is reductive and boring. A good combat system should encourage you to use all the fun tools you have, not make you dread having to use them and make you feel bad afterwards for having done so because it means going back to do a long rest. Coming from the Original Sin games where varied ability usage and pumping your most enjoyable spells every fight is the norm, this feels incredibly oppressive and boring. I am of the belief that powerful abilities should be limited in their use through build-up mechanics (i.e. some kind of system that makes you have to build up to unleashing your strongest spells) as opposed to tear-down mechanics (such as here, where you have all your power available, but using them loses them).
4) Limited Builds
With a mere 12 levels and rather strict level-up bonuses on every class, the possibilities for builds feel quite limited. I don't want to rag too harshly on this because, in my limited playtime and exposure to 5e, I felt that there was "enough" freedom to do a bit of building, but I can easily see how I'd have exhausted the system once I played each class once. Multiclassing is often a harsh tradeoff that's only worth it in specific circumstances I find. For the most part, you'd be well served just monoclassing and picking whatever flavor of subclass serves your fantasy. I've seen much better class systems in other games (for example classless like in the Original Sin games, or the much more freeform class mixing like in Xenoblade Chronicles 3).
5) Binary Success / Fail Mechanics (ergo everything involving a D20)
I hate these mechanics in any game, any system. Failing a skill check and just NOT doing the thing you wanted to do, is frustrating and boring. Wasting an action on NOT doing anything to the enemy and effectively skipping your own turn is frustrating and boring. Hitting an enemy only for them to save against the debuff is frustrating and boring. D&D is full of pass / fail nonsense and I have zero tolerance or patience for it. I hate hit chances in any game (looking at you XCOM). BG3 is filled to the brim with them and it only gets worse with every D20 I roll. I have nothing but disdain for that die because it singlehandedly ruins BG3 for me.
And those are my feelings on BG3. It genuinely makes me sad because, as said, I really like Larian, and I think that there's a really fun campaign in here. Unfortunately, a problematic dialogue system and, above all else, D&D drags it down and makes it an absolute pain to play. If only it were possible to rip out the entire engine and insert the gameplay of DOS2 into this, I wouldn't be writing this - I'd be busy playing. Alas, that's just not something I can have. I'll keep my eyes peeled on any overhaul mods that might come out in a year or so, see how much they can salvage, if anything.
I'm happy for the success Larian is enjoying and I pray that they take their profits and go back to doing what they're good at, unburdened by the yoke of a terrible TTRPG system.
2021
Cool game with some serious caveats. I had fun for what it's worth and would recommend this to others.
This game looks absolutely gorgeous. Not only are the assets incredibly high fidelity, the art design is top notch. It's a fantastic looking world, with awesome music and generally compelling lore - even if the writing is sometimes a bit uninspired and typos do exist. From an artistic standpoint, this game is up there with the best of 'em.
While the gameplay is generally serviceable and entertaining, it does get a bit repetitive over time. Given that the campaign, if you skip a majority of the side quests, took me around 13 hours to complete, this is not too bad. I think it would have dragged if the game had been any longer than it was, but for the duration it had it was fine.
That said, I do have serious reservations regarding some game design decisions. Here's my take: this game should have been an arcadey twin stick shooter, something like a modern Crusader or an isometric Contra. Adding enemies whose stats dramatically scale with some fictional level attribute and having high-level jackets outclass lower level armors felt completely unnecessary and actively detracted from the experience. Reminded me of Witcher 3 where you could stumble upon some high level bandits who look identical to low level bandits you've been butchering, but these ones are highlanders that never die and one-shot you. Simply because they have "levels" on you. Even when fighting enemies roughly equal on level, they felt way too bullet-spongy. Maybe my chosen gun (the Roomsweeper) was just bad, I can't say since I didn't experiment much. But it felt really dull when a single dude in a jacket takes 2-3 clips (a 60 bullets each) to kill, when they can drop my health in seconds. Again, just make it like Contra - let me kill enemies in a few bullets but also make me die fast. Of course, they'd have to tidy up the graphics a bit to make that work, as this game is, visually, quite busy.
In the same vein that the level scaling added nothing, the weapon upgrade system was also a complete waste of design space. I'd argue it discourages experimentation because swapping to an unupgraded weapon means it's going to suck, and you don't want to stick limited resources into something you don't know you will like. So you're most likely going to experiment a bit in the early stages of the game, settle on a gun you like, then stick all your resources into that gun and one, maybe two side arms. Never even maxed my main gun in a full playthrough (maybe I would if I had done all side content).
All in all, I think they should have done away with any and all "rpg" conventions and stuck to making a strictly arcade experience with an action packed campaign.
Aside from gameplay grudges, the game also felt relatively buggy, at least in multiplayer. Crashes, disappearing models, getting stuck inside NPCs, enemies not taking damage from one player and more. No session was bug-free. They weren't so bad that they killed the game for us, but they remained an ever-present nuisance.
Now, you might be coming away from this wondering why I recommend it. The thing is, I did like the game, and I like where they were going with it for the most part. I think there's enough in the game to like that it is worth a play in spite of its problems - and I see potential in it to become so much more with a bit more thought, care and time put into it. For all of these reasons, I still think the game is worth a purchase. Simply be aware of its possible shortcomings.
This game looks absolutely gorgeous. Not only are the assets incredibly high fidelity, the art design is top notch. It's a fantastic looking world, with awesome music and generally compelling lore - even if the writing is sometimes a bit uninspired and typos do exist. From an artistic standpoint, this game is up there with the best of 'em.
While the gameplay is generally serviceable and entertaining, it does get a bit repetitive over time. Given that the campaign, if you skip a majority of the side quests, took me around 13 hours to complete, this is not too bad. I think it would have dragged if the game had been any longer than it was, but for the duration it had it was fine.
That said, I do have serious reservations regarding some game design decisions. Here's my take: this game should have been an arcadey twin stick shooter, something like a modern Crusader or an isometric Contra. Adding enemies whose stats dramatically scale with some fictional level attribute and having high-level jackets outclass lower level armors felt completely unnecessary and actively detracted from the experience. Reminded me of Witcher 3 where you could stumble upon some high level bandits who look identical to low level bandits you've been butchering, but these ones are highlanders that never die and one-shot you. Simply because they have "levels" on you. Even when fighting enemies roughly equal on level, they felt way too bullet-spongy. Maybe my chosen gun (the Roomsweeper) was just bad, I can't say since I didn't experiment much. But it felt really dull when a single dude in a jacket takes 2-3 clips (a 60 bullets each) to kill, when they can drop my health in seconds. Again, just make it like Contra - let me kill enemies in a few bullets but also make me die fast. Of course, they'd have to tidy up the graphics a bit to make that work, as this game is, visually, quite busy.
In the same vein that the level scaling added nothing, the weapon upgrade system was also a complete waste of design space. I'd argue it discourages experimentation because swapping to an unupgraded weapon means it's going to suck, and you don't want to stick limited resources into something you don't know you will like. So you're most likely going to experiment a bit in the early stages of the game, settle on a gun you like, then stick all your resources into that gun and one, maybe two side arms. Never even maxed my main gun in a full playthrough (maybe I would if I had done all side content).
All in all, I think they should have done away with any and all "rpg" conventions and stuck to making a strictly arcade experience with an action packed campaign.
Aside from gameplay grudges, the game also felt relatively buggy, at least in multiplayer. Crashes, disappearing models, getting stuck inside NPCs, enemies not taking damage from one player and more. No session was bug-free. They weren't so bad that they killed the game for us, but they remained an ever-present nuisance.
Now, you might be coming away from this wondering why I recommend it. The thing is, I did like the game, and I like where they were going with it for the most part. I think there's enough in the game to like that it is worth a play in spite of its problems - and I see potential in it to become so much more with a bit more thought, care and time put into it. For all of these reasons, I still think the game is worth a purchase. Simply be aware of its possible shortcomings.