Alright, this will be really hard for me, because this game is downright GIGANTIC, so I will be uncharacteristically brief (and I left the huge, huge brunt of my review on my site). And this is less a 'This game you love SUCKS!' and more of a 'Be aware of this game's flaws'
I'm a fan of both the Baldur's Gate franchise, and Larian's own franchise Divinity, so I'm acquainted with Larian's 'quirks'. They are a studio who often punches far above their weight with mixed results. On one hand, their games show a higher degree of production and artistic values, fun and creative gameplay and surprisingly deep stories.
On the other, their games are absurdly bugged and their attempts to bite more than they can chew leave them with a staggering amount of cut content.
And this game is no exception. When playing it, it gave me the impression of a Haymaker: Packing an enormous amount of force and can be a surefire KO if it hits, but its unrefined, and if you miss you'll leave yourself open to attacks. And if this game is a Haymaker, its ok to think of the scenario around it like a Rocky match. Because both end up a mess in the final round.
Is it good? Yes. Do I recommend it? Yes. It did what it had to do, it K Oed a status quo of AAA producers shoving trash with bloated elements like microtransactions, expecting to be paid for it and shrugging when criticized. Its a beautiful game of gorgeous scenarios, easy to learn combat (if you pay attention to the UI, which is actually quite good) and a living, breathing world. Each dungeon has a history and many choices have consequences.
But on the messy side of the haymaker, Larian tried both to make the cake and eat it, resulting in an uneven experience with several glaring flaws. Baldur's Gate as a series is simplistic, Good-Versus-Evil that uses its iconic threatening villains as an anchor. The player knows who they are, but don't know what they want, why they are hunting the player and what are their plans. Older Larian games like to ask questions about power (its nature, what a person does for it, etc) and prefer hide everything under plot twists. Hell, generally you discover who the villain is in the final quarter of their games!
If they had chosen the BG or the Larian approach, it would have been fine, but they tried to use both. This results in a game with a horrid pacing, spending two thirds of its plot hinting, but never revealing anything about an antagonist that they try to hype up at every possible moment. With no surprise, everything is suddenly desperately shoved in the third act, nearly putting everything to lose. NP Cs suddenly disappear, long chains of quests end in lackluster rewards, and the damn weak plot twists just keep coming after they stayed their welcome... Its atrocious.
So why do I still recommend it? Because there is unbridled passion in this project and it shows. While its focus was scattered and unguided, BG 3 aims to deliver an immersive experience. Each ruin or abandoned house you visit has a story, people have lives outside of the main character's influences, the voice acting is excellent (I hate Astarion, but I agree that his VA deserved his prize) the music is simply beautiful (even if the majority of the combat themes end up a bit generic if compared to the wondrous background music). But most of all, the game rewards creative thinking and instigates optional research instead of shoving infodumps into the player's ears. And Larian being Larian, they are still listening to the fans and trying their best to fix their messes.
So like a Rocky match, the victor is a bloody ugly pulp, but it's a victor nonetheless.
The Haymaker.
Alright, this will be really hard for me, because this game is downright GIGANTIC, so I will be uncharacteristically brief (and I left the huge, huge brunt of my review on my site). And this is less a 'This game you love SUCKS!' and more of a 'Be aware of this game's flaws'
I'm a fan of both the Baldur's Gate franchise, and Larian's own franchise Divinity, so I'm acquainted with Larian's 'quirks'. They are a studio who often punches far above their weight with mixed results. On one hand, their games show a higher degree of production and artistic values, fun and creative gameplay and surprisingly deep stories.
On the other, their games are absurdly bugged and their attempts to bite more than they can chew leave them with a staggering amount of cut content.
And this game is no exception. When playing it, it gave me the impression of a Haymaker: Packing an enormous amount of force and can be a surefire KO if it hits, but its unrefined, and if you miss you'll leave yourself open to attacks. And if this game is a Haymaker, its ok to think of the scenario around it like a Rocky match. Because both end up a mess in the final round.
Is it good? Yes. Do I recommend it? Yes. It did what it had to do, it K Oed a status quo of AAA producers shoving trash with bloated elements like microtransactions, expecting to be paid for it and shrugging when criticized. Its a beautiful game of gorgeous scenarios, easy to learn combat (if you pay attention to the UI, which is actually quite good) and a living, breathing world. Each dungeon has a history and many choices have consequences.
But on the messy side of the haymaker, Larian tried both to make the cake and eat it, resulting in an uneven experience with several glaring flaws. Baldur's Gate as a series is simplistic, Good-Versus-Evil that uses its iconic threatening villains as an anchor. The player knows who they are, but don't know what they want, why they are hunting the player and what are their plans. Older Larian games like to ask questions about power (its nature, what a person does for it, etc) and prefer hide everything under plot twists. Hell, generally you discover who the villain is in the final quarter of their games!
If they had chosen the BG or the Larian approach, it would have been fine, but they tried to use both. This results in a game with a horrid pacing, spending two thirds of its plot hinting, but never revealing anything about an antagonist that they try to hype up at every possible moment. With no surprise, everything is suddenly desperately shoved in the third act, nearly putting everything to lose. NP Cs suddenly disappear, long chains of quests end in lackluster rewards, and the damn weak plot twists just keep coming after they stayed their welcome... Its atrocious.
So why do I still recommend it? Because there is unbridled passion in this project and it shows. While its focus was scattered and unguided, BG 3 aims to deliver an immersive experience. Each ruin or abandoned house you visit has a story, people have lives outside of the main character's influences, the voice acting is excellent (I hate Astarion, but I agree that his VA deserved his prize) the music is simply beautiful (even if the majority of the combat themes end up a bit generic if compared to the wondrous background music). But most of all, the game rewards creative thinking and instigates optional research instead of shoving infodumps into the player's ears. And Larian being Larian, they are still listening to the fans and trying their best to fix their messes.
So like a Rocky match, the victor is a bloody ugly pulp, but it's a victor nonetheless.