The first game in ages where it actually feels like the company/ developers actually put in effort and released a complete product. It's not that hard to understood why consumers are flocking to it. People are just fed up with the garbage EA and ubisoft have been putting out. Honestly, I'd be fine with ubisoft dissolving and going out of business.
It's the same as when Elden Ring dropped. Even people who never played Souls games prior were picking it up because it was just a complete, solid open world RPG.
I've never played Baldur's Gate before, but I'm probably gonna pick 3 up to play with my roommate in splitscreen.
This. No matter how talented the game devs are, it feels like the suits do everything they can to squeeze every last drop out of the game. And the game feels incomplete because they often take things out of the game so that you have to pay to get it back in.
Or a promising game enters early access and gets bought out by Tencent who tries to hyper-monetize and if they can't they just kill it.
I still mourn Last Oasis, that game had so much potential. It 30,000+ players in the first months and was so much fun, but the devs sold to Snail Games and it died a slow, stupid death before even getting out of EA.
The first game in ages where it actually feels like the company/ developers actually put in effort and released a complete product
Ironically the only people who say this about BG3 have not reached the third act yet. Still my favourite game in years, but the later stages of the game really could have done with more playtesting. there are bugged quests, disappearing characters, people ignoring story events in dialogue, missing cutscenes and multiple outcomes for storylines happening at the same time.
He focuses on the visual aspects of the game, which are indeed wonderful and contribute a lot to immersion, but to me, a host of other elements contribute at least as much to making this game stand above the rest. The writing, acting, world richness, player agency, variety of story possibilities, battle mechanics, and sound design, for example. There's so much to love that even with all the bugs, it's still a lot fun.
I think I agree with him. It's not just that it looks good and that it's cinematic; it's that it brings what they were doing well already to that cinematic standard that we got from the big studios for years. But those big studios were frequently sacrificing the depth of the RPG in the process. Mass Effect 1 had a full character sheet and a bunch of mechanics that never really came together. Mass Effect 2 had fairly simple skill trees. That series was good for lots of reasons, but in order to make each sequel in only 2 years, they threw away what didn't work rather than iterating on it to fix what didn't work. BG3 is iterating on Larian's previous successes and still letting us get that cinematic experience from Mass Effect. It's definitely what caught my attention when it was previously barely on my radar.
To this day, I really wish BioWare had iterated on their mechanics in Mass Effect instead of trying to make it more of a shooter in RPG clothing. I liked how certain classes could only wear certain armor or use certain weapon types, and how you had more choice in how your Shepard was built.
I think live play podcasts and shows might help also. I'm a big live play DND/ttrpg listener despite having never played in person with people. I bought it pretty much instantly and I'm loving how much it feels like those podcasts.
I know CRPGs based on ttrpg mechanics still hit with people back in the 90s and early 00s but I'm guessing it wasn't the selling point. Like I'm pretty sure people didn't buy Fallout back in 97 because it used a system that was similar to GURPS.
The Adventure Zone podcast by the McElroy brothers came out in like 2014 and the live play podcast genre skyrocketed since. Pretty much every podcast network has at least a few DND shows plus a few more using other unique systems. There's even podcasts parodying live play like Offices and Bosses, an improv comedy where they play fantasy monsters playing DND with human characters. Theres no way people would have come up with that format before the adventure zone.
To be fair, audiovisual and name recognition is huge. People talk about the game as if nothing like it has ever existed. DOS 1/2, Kingmaker/WotR, PoE I/II, and many more are similar games, also varying levels of amazing, but without large cinematic budgets and mo cap and extensive voice acting and DND name recognition, they don’t even get mentioned in most comparison articles which always just go to DragonAge.
So I bought the game a while ago, but haven't really been playing it (I need to get into the right headspace). However, I've come to realise something.
This is the first game I've bought for over £40 in a while where I haven't felt scammed or that I'm complicit in something immoral. I feel like they "deserve" the money, which is a strange feeling considering the AAA industry right now.
The game doesn't even include DRM, not even the "free" one you can enable through steam.
same here. I typically buy games on super deep sales a few years after the games comes out just so I don't end up disappointed by the product, but this game feels properly polished. a few bugs here and there but none so far that I've encountered that are game-breaking
I honestly don't intend to be rude, so please don't take this the wrong way. But this is a very minor detail that was featured in prelaunch marketing and went heavily viral. I understand not wanting to encounter spoilers about important events in a game, but this is not that.
Knowing you can fuck the bear isn't the same as knowing what it is like to fuck the bear. I'm glad I know fucking the bear is possible, because now I can go fuck it.
I haven’t played it yet but would like to so no spoilers please, but from what little I’ve seen it just looks like reskinned and slightly upgraded D:OS2.
DOS2 is one of my favorite games of all time and i am somewhat suspicious that people think Baldur’s gate is some novel masterpiece when really it’s that Divinity is super under rated and relatively unknown by comparison. Can anyone who has played both games weigh in on this?
And if it is the case that gameplay is very similar, is it just the setting / writing that is much better in BG that makes it stand apart or was it just coincidence / hype that made this game succeed harder?
To me, the biggest improvement in BG3 is how much looser the gameplay progression is. Since being just two levels behind meant death was all but certain in D:OS2, the path even on an "open" map like the Reaper's Coast was still very much on rails. XP gain was so tight that side quests weren't really optional, even to the point of discouraging roleplay by doing things like passing persuasion checks and then killing everyone anyway to squeeze every last drop out of the map. The first D:OS also really struggled with this until later in the game.
BG3's first large map is a little tight, but even a new player can easily go off script and pick and choose what quests they want to undertake once they hit level 5. Encounters with enemies two levels higher can still be comfortable after that point, even three higher if the player has a good party build or has mastery of the battle system. And the player will want to, because the game is huge. It's such a delight to just go, and it's exciting to see Larian turn a major weakness into a strength.
But essentially, BG3 meets or improves upon every system in D:OS2. The dialogue scenes are the most flashy improvement, supported well by good writing, voice acting, and mocap. The only thing I found to be a step back was the soundtrack. I don't think it's bad, and there are some standout songs for sure, but D:OS2 really excelled in that area both in terms of the quality of the music and how it was used in battle (but then I'm a sucker for cello). It also won't compare favorably to D:OS2 in its current state in terms of polish, but D:OS2 wasn't exactly bug-free on release, either.
A big part of why this game is so big in the zeitgeist right now is because Larian was able to pounce on a lull in the release schedule. I'd call the pre-release hype for this game average at worst for that reason alone. Early reviews were beyond glowing, marking a studio's successful graduation to AAA development with a game that has no aggressive add-ons or DRM. That will spur gaming enthusiasts to generate all the marketing you need.
It has been a while since I played Divinity: Original Sin 2, and I'm still in Act 1 of BG3, but from memory:
D:OS2 has fewer bugs and better performance. This isn't surprising, of course, since it has had more time for polish.
From what I've seen so far, BG3 has:
More balanced battle mechanics. In particular, battles aren't dominated by excessive surface/cloud effects or telekinetic barrel drops, and I haven't yet had a fight where I felt unfairly disadvantaged by my party lacking one specific ability.
Far fewer instances of the targeting UI lying to me and causing frustration in battle.
More world to explore.
Richer lore, as told through books and journals all over the world. It reminds me a bit of Elder Scrolls in this respect.
More interesting writing. (This might be subjective, but I would be surprised if most people disagreed.)
More character depth.
More immersive voice acting. (For example, the voice actors almost always understand the context of their lines. They often didn't in D:OS 2, which I found distracting.)
Better character animation (outside of cut scenes, some of which are a bit awkward).
The gameplay is indeed similar, of course, as it's the same kind of game, from the same studio, using a revision of the same engine. But this one is IMHO better in almost every respect, and I think I'm more likely to play it again when I'm done.
i am somewhat suspicious that people think Baldur’s gate is some novel masterpiece
Novel? Not really, except maybe to people who haven't played its predecessor, or good BioWare games, or D&D. More like an improvement on what came before it.
when really it’s that Divinity is super under rated
Where in the world have you seen D:OS2 underrated? I sure haven't.
and relatively unknown by comparison.
Well, yes, that's to be expected. D:OS2 didn't have half a century of role playing game history or Hasbro's marketing budget behind it.
Thanks for your insights. I meant underrated in terms of exposure. As you indeed pointed out, it's highly praised by those who have played it. And it's not a hidden gem by any means it just feels less zeitgeisty than BG is. I haven't actually seen the numbers so that could just be anecdotal.
With your incidental review, I am excited to play it! Probably after Starfield though :)
A lot of the great things in D:OS2 are present in BG3 and it probably wouldn't be a success without them.
For an upgrade, Baldurs Gate 3 has great cinematics with motion capture and it feels like the dialogue writing offers more interesting, sometimes outlandish options. Often, winning a skill check just earns you a witty line, but it feels great.
I have encountered one remarkable situation were I really didn't expect something to work, but I was able to play it out exactly as I would have been able, interrupting the main characters dialogue by switching to a companion and doing something and the NPC reacted as I had hoped.
I've missed the launch week so I'm going to wait for sales on this one. Steam sales have conditioned me to avoid buying games that are not brand new at full price.