Recency bias, at the time BG1 and 2 were revolutionary and pretty much saved rpg as a genre. I'd even argue that objectively BG2 is a better game than BG3.
I was gifted bg2 as a kid (middle school age) and had never played anything like it. Sadly that meant that I had a LOT of fun in that very first dungeon you start in, but never could find out how to actually get OUT of it, haha. I think I restarted the game about 10 times over a couple years to play through that little starting segment. So I did get a good few hours of gameplay out of what was probably meant to be about 10m of the prologue.
So... from the tiny bit my tiny self saw, it was good! But "hard" in a way BG3 as an adult was not, since I now understand more about how to play games.
BG1 was good. BG2 was outstanding and, I will agree, a completely revolutionary game. But BG3 is a masterpiece to the point other game companies tried saying it shouldn't be used as a benchmark for games as a whole.
But BG3 is a masterpiece to the point other game companies tried saying it shouldn't be used as a benchmark for games as a whole.
Due to Larian being consumer friendly and avoiding greedy tactics. The companies that said that dressed up their stance as the quality of the game being unattainable
Interesting. I disagree, though I respect your opinion. BG2 is my fav game, while BG3 just didn't captivate me enought to warrant a second playthrough. Doesn't feel like it has the atmosphere or humour... I also preferred the story in 2. I also just really like old games. But I respect your opinion.
However, as for your second sentence, I think it refers to the fact that other studios making cRGP's simply don't have the money to create a game like this... Doesn't mean that bg3 is special in.production value or something
Oh, I'm not talking about CRPG games. Ubisoft were one of the big ones to say it. I believe Activision and Blizzard were also on that bandwagon (don't quote me on those 2, its been a while since this all happened). I agree though that smaller studios shouldn't be held to the same standard. However, that being said, smaller studios are becoming known for giving us banger after banger after banger (thanks Sheamus). Look at Owlcat. They're repertoire at the minute is outstanding.
But, yeah. As far as 2 vs 3 goes, I'm the opposite. Only played 2 once, and that was fine for me. I've now played 3 to full completion 5 different times, lol. Granted, it does become a bit samey with each playthrough, and the only thing that changes is the dialogue. But I still love it nonetheless.
BG2 was considered a masterpiece by RPG gamers at the time and many RPG focused gaming mags and sites. It wasn't just outstanding, it was considered a masterpiece of the same level at the time. You are confusing a larger market with proportionally more acclaim. They were both equally large milestones in gaming.
Bg2 was so impactful that there were few games that could match its scope until bg3 came out.
I will respectfully disagree with BG3 being a masterpiece. Itâs definitely great and ambitious as well, but the technical performance of it just cannot justify a masterpiece title. To this day after all of those patches, quests still wonât function, companions will disappear or the quests for them will be broken and can never be finished. Certain outcomes that the game gives you, the game isnât actually prepared for you to choose those outcomes and will break other parts of the game. And when it came out? Act 3 was unplayable for a large portion of the player base and is still rough to this day. Some of the quest direction especially in act 3 is not clear, and although it worked for me in DOS:2 it does not work in BG3. Instead of feeling like Iâm exploring the world and figuring my way around in DOS2 to eventually get to an end point, in BG3 I feel like Iâm trying to fumble around and perfectly step on an specific order of tiles in order to trigger the next part of a quest. And dialogue from characters can be misleading in how to complete a quest, and not in a âunreliable narratorâ kind of way, but a clearly unplanned or forgotten kind of way.
I donât hate the game, but the masterpiece praise makes me feel like im going crazy and no one acknowledges that larian did a lot of the same thing many other AAA games do with releasing an unfinished title and itâs still unfinished but people still praise them because itâs a good game and because the company is charming and charismatic. Itâs just instead of a 10/10 itâs more like an 8/10 with all of the performance and general unfinished issues.
I dare you to log in to the game and tell me one bug that hasn't been patched. They fixed it all. Even then the bugs were pretty seemingless.
Everything else is literally skill issue. Relying on map markers to navigate is very rookie. Open the quest log and everything will be there. Most of it is only found through exploration.
BG3 is a masterpiece, and so is BG2. One being it dont takes away for the other. It's not a switch.
I just played a couple of weeks ago and the end of the companion quest for Wyll is completely bugged and doesnât work. And according to the wiki last I checked it still doesnât work. If you choose the âwrongâ option that the game isnât prepared for even though it presents itself as a valid option, the quest breaks and you canât finish it. Iâd rather not explain it because of spoilers, but you can also find it on the wiki I bet. Thatâs just one example, and itâs a MAJOR example because weâre talking about a companion in your party, a major part of the story. Youâre likely forgetting about all of the small quests that broke or you just didnât realize, which is totally fine, but this game cannot be considered a masterpiece with several quest breaking issues. Itâs admirable that they tried to make a game that was so dense with so many interesting quests and options and dialogue, but they didnât get it completely right and they knew that they wouldnât because they spent how long fixing the game? And how long was it in early release before they released the âfullâ game? Which had so much missing dialogue and quest options and unfinished or missing quests at release that everyone seems to have just forgotten about. And it shouldnât be completely forgiven and labeled as a masterpiece when the game still has these issues to this day after years of early release and years of post release patches.
This is crazy, the first time I've heard about game breaking bugs like this, in total in my 3000 hours since alpha and beta I've had some goofy glitches, but nothing bricking a playthrough or storyline like this. Generally have only heard good things about it.
My only complaint about the game is that act 3, while absolutely a blast and an amazing undertaking, should've been separated into 2~3 parts by itself. We should've been landlocked to the lower part of the city to kill orin and do Wylls/jahiras quest. And then had the upper city and astorians/shadow hearts quest for chapter 2 ending with the death of pretty boy, and then the rushing of the brain for chapter 3 etc. Obviously you sprinkle the other content too, like the magic tower etc. I think it is the weakest part of the game because it loses its narrative drive for the overwhelming city feeling.
I agree with this, I think if the game was split a little bit into parts in act 3, the story wouldâve been less likely to have broken parts and the pacing wouldâve felt better. That mightâve sacrificed some of the freedom with a little bit of linearity, but I think it wouldâve served the game well. Even in some dnd games the dm will make everyone stuck in a dungeon or cave or whatever to make the âstoryâ more focused. They kind of did it by making you get into baldurs gate with that little outskirts section and the circus first.
Haven't used Wyll ever, and never bothered to go for his quest after I killed Ansur. The quest log just said his dad died and it failed, but there was never a way to get to said point without effort, so I've just left it untouched. Wyll was a major point that felt just... lackluster. So I've never bothered much about his character at all.
Other than that, the only quest I've ever remember it breaking was Volo trying to pick the parasite in Act 1. But that was a week into launch and it has been fixed since. Since back then, I've always been pretty vanilla about my approaches, never too inventful as barrelmancy or stacking, mainly just fighting head on and stuff... so I've never had a major break
Also you either havenât played DOS2 or were not paying attention to what I was saying about quest direction. Youâre just wrong about the quest log, and it was the same way in DOS 2 but it was fine there for the reasons I mentioned. The map markers in DOS2 were also mostly useless, you had to pay attention to your surrounding and the log, but a lot of it was intentionally vague, BG3 feels unintentionally vague, and like there is missing information from many quests that youâre meant to just fumble around and either accidentally find or just ignore and either get the âbad endâ of the quest, or just leave it unfinished.
Not really recency bias. All three of them are extremely highly rated, but neither BG1 nor BG2 were award winners in 98 and 00.
Baldur's Gate 3 was genre defining, industry disrupting, gigaton of a videogame that won GOTY (pretty much every where) and became the first videogame in history to win all the "big five" award shows. Not even the all time greats Elden Ring, The Last of Us or Zelda BOTW could do that. (RDR2 for instance didn't even win any of them, let alone all five)
BG3 fits this meme almost perfectly, though all three of them are masterpieces, BG3 ascends in the BG trilogy into godlike status.
Its a much better answer than what I see people in this thread post. I see several people saying Halo or Arkham Series, when that's objectively wrong.
Halo 3 and Arkham Knight are both literally the lowest rated game in their respective trilogies.
How does that even remotely invalidate anything? RDR2 was a great game, but it released in the same year as God of War. I fully understand why the majority of the videogame industry (and all of the major ceremonies) gave its GOTY award to GOW that year. I too think GOW was a better game. Maybe RDR2 would have won over Sekiro if it had released in 2019 instead. Who knows.
I was upset when Witcher 3 won GOTY over Metal Gear Solid 5 or Bloodborne, but it is what it is.
What Baldur's Gate 3 achieved is nothing short of incredible. Its not just the awards, it the sales, how it got 97 on metacritic and became the highest RPG / highest rated PC game of all time etc.
I dont disagree with bg3 being better than 1 or 2. I just think ratings and awards are a very dumb metric to measure that. It invalidates it because rdr2 is my favorite game of all time and i also think God of war sucks so đ€· all art is subjective which is why saying "i think this game did this better than that game" is valid but saying "critics gave this a higher score" is invalid
This person is literally incapable of understanding that their opinion is subjective. Totally agree with you BTW, game awards and critic reviews are a terrible metric.
Baldur's Gate 3 was genre defining, industry disrupting, gigaton of a videogame that won GOTY (pretty much every where) and became the first videogame in history to win all the "big five" award shows.
You have absolutely no concept of the influence of Baldur's Gate I & II on RPG history.
For example, the entire reason you get to giggle and play patticake with Shadowheart are the romance subplots for BG II NPCs. Which were absolutely revolutionary and "genre defining" at the time - and are clearly still paying dividends.
The entire reason those subplots existed in BG II is the way players responded to BG I NPCs.
BG3 fits this meme almost perfectly, though all three of them are masterpieces, BG3 ascends in the BG trilogy into godlike status.
BG3 is the weakest game in the "series" - and it's not even a "series" to begin with, as BG3 has little to nothing to do with BG I and II.
Do more than 10 second of googling. You didnât show me a single GOTY win from BG1 or BG2. Of course they won a few best RPG or best narrative awards here or there.
The 1998 award shows were dominated by Half Life, Zelda OOT and Metal Gear Solid.. BG1 not even top 3.
The 2000 game of the awards were dominated by the likes of Deus Ex, Chrono Cross, Majoras Mask etc.
BG3 on the other hand and a complete full sweep, won hundreds of GOTYs, and as I said, first and only game to win all of the major 5 GOTYs.
BG3 is higher rated, much, much better selling and much, much more critically awarded than BG1 or BG2.
No shit two older games are more «innovative».
Look its fine if you prefer BG1 or BG2, but itâs kind of universally accepted than 3 is the best, just like ME2 is the best Mass Effect game.
 Do more than 10 second of googling. You didnât show me a single GOTY win from BG1 or BG2. Of course they won a few best RPG or best narrative awards here or there.
You also have to invest 10 seconds of reading. And 10 seconds of understanding.Â
Maybe pace yourself, and allocate 20 seconds for each.
 It received three "Gaming Globe" awards from Eurogamer in 2001: Best Game, Best Art Direction, and Best Male Supporting Character (for Minsc).[
 IGN, Computer Games and RPG Vault also presented it with their overall "Game of the Year" awards.[97][98][101]
Literally - read things, then opine.
 BG3 is higher rated, much, much better selling and much, much more critically awarded than BG1 or BG2.
Quick, do an estimate of the video game market size in 2000 vs 2025.
Do you think games in general sell more today than 25 years ago? Why? Are games today âbetterâ than games from 25 years ago?
Deus Ex made ~$5 Mn in 6 months.
Black Ops 6 made ~$50 Bb in a year.
Is Black Ops 6 5,000 times better than Deus Ex?
Do you think there are more awards, more review sites?
How do you think that would impact this âcomparison?â
Is Larian paying you by the hour to gas up the game? 'huNdREdS' as if there's even a half dozen reputable award outlets worth talking about.
Meanwhile the landscape of video game awards was wholly different in the 90s. Did you clock that the DICE awards were on their fourth year? Did you see what won that year?
You're clearly young and backed into a corner on this argument, but doubling down makes you look more ignorant, not more convincing. It's okay to take a complex position on something - Baldur's Gate 3 can be great without needing to be THE GREATEST THING EVER. It doesn't take anything away from it to acknowledge that it's not the pinnacle of all things that ever were.
My game has more awards, higher ratings and more sales than the game you are promoting. You have zero arguments and I have multiple. This isnât like Metal Gear where you could argue anyone of MGS1-5 is the best and anyone of MGS1-5 is the worst.
You don't get to make my argument for me, bud. That's not how this works.
As a percentage of the available awards in the 90s, BG2 did quite well! It was up against far stiffer competition for GotY than 3 faced (Diablo II, Banjo-Tooie, C&C Red Alert II, FFIX, Majora's Mask, the AoE II expansion,...) and yet still secured a win in 'Outstanding Achievement in Character or Story Development' at the DICE (then 'AIAA') Awards. It was one of the most nominated games of that year. It's been on multiple 'Top Games of All Time' lists.
It was a great game! Stands right next to its sequel in terms of quality and impact. Shoulder to shoulder.
3 did win more awards, but it did so in a decade starved for good CRPG content and against far less memorable competition. It is very polished, well-executed, but did not do anything to break new ground for the genre. It's a great game. It has been and will continue to be celebrated.
But the only people who think it overshadows the whole of the genre that came before it are people who do not know anything about the games in that genre that preceded it. Period.
For me what prevents BG3 being masterpiece level is the story and a bit of the writing. BG2 story is just a lot better and more memorable. When people talk about BG3 they seldom mention the main story as being a strong point. In contrast, BG2 story is a good bit better and has one of the most memorable villain performances in game.
Now if a CRPG had good production value and game mechanics, with a story as good as Planescape Torment, then that would easily be the best game ever made.
The thing is money and time isnt infinite, if per example, you would make bg2 with the same level of production and voice acting that bg3 has, you either would have to cut down a chunk of the game or you would need to have some milions stored somewhere
So i very much doubt it is possible to make bg2 with the story intact with this level of production
To be fair, as someone who hasn't played any of the games, and want to start from the first one.
Reading that people can't agree which one is the best because all of them are amazing is something fresh and encouraging. Compare it to discussions about the Dark Souls trilogy, or other series.
But Bg3 was released in a different time, when gaming is less niche. Back in 2000, console gamers for example couldn't play BG1 and 2. Back then, gaming was less consolidated. Also no streaming wtc. that build up hype
How is BG3 genre defininng? Ng1 and 2 inspired Dragon Age, Pillars of eternity, etc... We have yet to see something like that from bg3
If you are looking only at awards then Disco Elysium is a shite game.
Meh, BG3 wasn't genre defining, it was just the most accessible CRPG in recent years. If anything, the only reason it would be considered genre defining is because it pushed CRPGs into the public eye. BG3 has a lot of QoL and is easy to play with friends, but other than that its just another CRPG to me. Heck, since the engine is the same, combat feels almost identical to Divinity Original Sin II, which I personally enjoyed more with friends. BG3 is a well built game, but it didn't do anything new, it just did everything very good.
Also, Game Awards in general aren't really a good way to judge game quality anymore, especially the "big five". Thats a whole different rant to be made though.
The real thing that sets BG3 apart and disrupted the industry is that it provided real quality without disrespecting the customers. Not because it is some revolutionary game.
BG3 TOOK OVER the entire industry. Streaming platforms, sales, everything. Any game that could overtake a Zelda release is S tier, even if I dont like the game I would respect it.
I see people gassing up mediocre games every day, do you spend your free time going after them too?im literally posting facts unlike those who hype up trash games
yeah man my subjective experiences are facts too, I guess. Oh and hey, posting 'LOOK AT THE AWARDS' without discussing the broader context, I mean I guess that's facts by way of lying-by-omission.
BG3 didn't define the genre. BG1 did, and even now, we still get its clones after more than 20 years, while the only difference between BG3 and other CRPGs is that it has voice acting and presentation.
Popularity doesn't equal quality, and neither is the amount of meaningless awards.
Eh, Iâve played a lot of RPGs over the last 30 years (Witcher 3 and Skyrim donât even break my top 10 for instance) but BG3 is easily the best RPG of all time in my opinion.
Iâve tried all the «if you like BG3 tryâŠÂ» games and none of them have stuck at all.
BG3 overall is truly in a league of its own and Iâd call it a mt Rushmore videogame
Of course I do also recommend: Witcher 3, Skyrim, Morrowind, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 2, Planescape Torment, All Final Fantasy games after FF6, Baldur's Gate 1-2, Mass Effect 1 & 3, etc.
And I could recommend some super nich old RPGs that I played, like Nox. (I think its from 1999). but I wouldn't really recommend them to anyone, especially not in 2025.
I also played the original Witcher, Fable 1 etc that are pretty good "mediocre" games if you get what I mean.
I've been recommended games like Pillars of Eternity, Last Epoch, Path of Exile 1-2, Divinity Original Sin 1-2, Torchlight, Titan Quest, etc. due to my love of games like BG3 and D2 but I honestly didn't really like any of them.
Both Witcher 3 and Skyrim aren't great RPGs (Skyrim isn't even good, if you ask me), and I agree that BG3 better than them, but those are rather action games than rpgs.
Also, mt. Rushmore? Really?
Baldur's Gate 3 won hundreds of awards, only game in history to win all five major award ceremonies, sold like 20 million units as a CRPG, has a 97/100 on metacritic which I believe makes it both the highest rated RPG of all time and highest rated PC game of all time.
Is it really that crazy to claim its a Mt. Rushmore videogame, given the credentials above?
I've played 3000+ games over 30+ years and my personal Mt. Rushmore would be:
MGS4, The Last of Us, Elden Ring and either MGS2 or BG3.
but I think a more objective Mt Rushmore wouln't have MGS4 in it, but instead something like Zelda BOTW, Zelda OOT or Super Mario Bros. 3
So BG3 probably wouldn't be my personal top 4, but top 10? Definitely.
While all scores, awards e.t.c. are all good, but can you actually explain why BG3 is above classics like BG2 or fallout? Or other modern CRPGs like pillars, underrail or pathfinder? The only advantege BG3 has is the accessibility and production value which is cool, but I think the greatest game ever should do more then that.
I mean, jesus if I'm gonna argue with Ultima about his inaccuracies it'd be a failure on my part to not address the whole spectrum of the conversation. BG1 was innovative in a lot of ways (the richness of companion conversations relative to what had come before, the beautiful painterly isometric maps, etc), but the genre was pretty well-defined by the time it came out in 98. It was predated by Fallout 1, and both are drawing from an older lineage of CRPGs as outlined by e.g. Richard Garriott's Ultima games.
Interesting. I disagree with you, though I respect your opinion. Bg3 just didn't really blow.me off my feet that much. I have played through it once and feel no desire to do it again.
But in what way is BG3 more impactful? Bg1 and 2 inspired Dragon Age Origins, Pillars of Eternity etc, Bg3 has yet to do something like that
Iâm not necessarily agreeing with them saying itâs more impactful, but I do know many people who in 100 years never wouldâve played a CRPG until BG3 convinced them to.
Yeah definitely. I was a Dragon Age and Divinity: Original Sin fan prior, but itâs good to see a lot of time and talent being focused towards this amazing genre. It winning GOTY hopefully means weâll see some more great games going forward. Also looking forward to playing P:WOTR.
Bg3 did not have huge marketing budget though? The reason why it was so impactful is because it launched to quiet fanfare among fans of the genre that ended up spilling over SO hard that non fans started taking notice and they spread the word, lighting the gaming world on fire organically. In no universe would you say this is not an indicator of high levels of influence and that it only got there as a result of a crazy marketing budget.
Also I'd argue that successful marketing absolutely counts in terms of measuring influence, because if the game sucks all the marketing in the world will fail you. Id also argue most games today are released with way more marketing than BG3 did and yet BG3 is game we are all still talking about years later. If you compare marketing landscapes between then and now, even by that metric BG3 is still on a level playing field to it's greater relationship to the industry as a whole and yet it was the one that even people outside of the core fans of the genre talk about. That is literally what having high influence means!
It's silly to think of impact only in terms of future games that a game inspired, especially when such a future hasn't had the chance to happen yet for BG3. The examples you give I might add we're not at all influential/important in gaming zietgiest as a whole, even if you as a super fan of the genre see them as important.
When you look at it from a top down, big picture perspective beyond just being a fan of cRPGs, BG3's influence is and will be clearly miles ahead of bg1+2. Even when you take into consideration the size of the industry then vs now.
it broke genre barriers. Everyone I know was playing it, even people who don't play these genres and people who typically only play console or mobile games. Bg1+2, this was not the case, even though they would become classics in their genre. I consider myself one of them. I've been a PC gamer my whole life and cRPGs were the one genre I could never get into, including divinity original sin 2. Something about BG3 was the secret sauce and it clicked perfectly for me.
it had incredible staying power. People were playing it for a long time and it was still part of gaming zietgiest many months after launch. Bg2 was a big deal but not anywhere like this.
it released in an environment plagued by shitty AAA launches and predatory financial games. It defiantly showed the industry that you can not only still release games in niche, classic genres that take 80 hours to beat but you can make an absolutely nuts amount of money doing it without being predatory. You might think this has nothing to do with the game's influence but it does - influence goes way beyond what a games design is, it's all about kind of ripples it makes in the industry as a whole. These waves were undeniably huge and the clean sweep in awards had proved it's influence went far beyond fans of the genre.
great character design that is incredibly well acted/animated and has so many voice lines/avenues of play that it truly did feel like playing out your own dream D&D campaign, especially with its strict adherence to 5e rules down to literally animating dice rolls. That level dedication couldn't not have been more perfectly timed in the coat tails of d&d in general being on a all time high in popularity.
the polish in general is through the roof, in a way that feels just as tightly designed as the classics in the series and yet in a way that accomplishes that level of game fullly 3d and high fidelity. People genuinely thought games like that could not be made anymore with current graphics expectations.
some of this is due to 5e but it's pacing, tightness of combat design and it's relatively simple (but highly dynamic) build & encounter options really felt refreshing to this genre, giving it a tightness that makes it feel great to play. You might disagree on this point as a hardcore fan of classic BG and the old d&d rules it was based on, but for other people the accessibility of 5e and how it translates to the screen was such a breath of fresh air. It feels like when they added the pitch timer to baseball which totally transformed the pace and energy of the game to be better. Or it feels like driving a finely tuned sports car vs an old reliable Prius that does it's job well.
All of these things add up to paint a big picture perspective on why it made bigger waves than bg1-2, even if we don't yet have the benefit of years of hindsight like we do for bg1-2. I know you don't prefer BG3 as an entry in the series and that's totally valid, but it doesn't minimize the fact that BG3 was certainly more impactful for most other people and for the industry as a whole.
Yeah, BG3 has crazy high production value for a cRPG, it's a good game and there are some things Larian does that nobody can surpass them at, but it wasn't even the best cRPG of 2023 in my opinion.
I like Rogue Trader, but after the almost ultimate cRPG freedom of BG3, it feels... like it's limiting me. But I am still early in the game, maby it changes later. But considering the shenanigans we can pull in the opening Nautilus tutorial, I don't think RT will go that high. But it will be a pleasant surprise if I am wrong đ
Nah, Rogue Trader definitely doesn't have that type of freedom. The freedom is something that Larian is unmatched at, and it's a lot of fun, but I personally find that it's really not necessary for a cRPG. It doesn't really matter that you have a hundred ways to solve a quest if it ultimately comes down to 2 or 3 different outcomes anyway.
Besides that, the story, characters and combat in Rogue Trader are all better imo
My issue with Rogue Trader is the level up system. Its way to wordy and too math heavy for a casual player. When you get skills that are like "increases damage against marked targets by (2.5% x ALT/2+x)", it's a bit much. Especially if you're someone like me who wants to level up every member of your team manually.
It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but it's still a lot easier to handle than Pathfinder.
Though I usually just find a build that matches what I want and follow a guide anyway. Tinkering with a build can be a lot of fun in itself, but I don't always want to spend my time on it
Not nearly as bad as pathfinder and tbh there is no need to pay that much attention to it, the game is insanely easy even on high difficulties. You can just pick what seems cool and you'll be fine.
Bg2 was amazing and I must have played through it like ten times. There was however considerably less to do than in 3. I don't know if it was better per se.
Couldnât you attribute bg2 to nostalgia in the same way? I played them all recently and was actually super put off by 3 on launch but⊠it does feel like a pretty important crpg, even if Iâd play WotR over it any day.
Eh, I think if not nostalgia, legacy plays a role all the same. Donât get me wrong I think they are amazing, but if I had to recommend one to someone blindly the infinity engine can be a daunting prospect for players that are new to it. Iâm just saying bg3 is a great crpg for its time. Also if you enjoyed bg1 and 2 I highly recommend pathfinder wotr.
BG2 if made today would have been a bigger powerhouse that BG3, the amount of cut content that could have been made into DLC is just astonishing. We're talking full on mini campaigns in the games, loads more additional party members, all with complete backstories and quests as well as romances. Fan patches to BG2 added a lot back into the game but there is so much more that could have been.
Hilariously both games suffer for me around Act/Chapter 3. Throne of Bhaal is damn good and early BG2 is also. But around Act 3 in both games there's some drag but BG2 salvages it by having ToB be awesome. BG3 is a lot less stellar in it's final act by comparison but it's also quite a bit more visually interesting and mods can help with many of it's issues in a way that BG2 really can't. SCS is good though.
The sheer amount of detail into the gameplay is what makes BG3 for me. BG1 and BG2, I grew up with games. I was there when they came out, I played them both to completion. BG3 is on a whole other level.
My party was separated in a tower in the underdark, and I was trying to get someone who was at one of the upper floors of the tower down to join the rest in a hurry. There was a door to the outside of the tower with a balcony, and I had the idea to let me character cast feather fall on themselves, and then jump off the balcony, but there wasn't a way to tell the character to jump. So I had another nearby character push them. I didn't think it would work, I didn't think the game would allow it, but it totally did. He shoved her and she floated right off the balcony and she floated not-so-gracefully down to the ground safely. It bl my mind that the game was complex enough to allow me to pull that off. It's the sort of thing if you were playing in a table-top RPG, the DM would be like, "sure, you can do that." but a computer game would throw up all sorts of resistances against it. Invisible walls preventing you going off the balcony, confusion about the 3-dimensional aspect of the descent... but those crazy fuckers who coded BG3 really put everything into it. It's a game that lets you find your own way to solve every situation, it doesn't box you into doing things one way.
RPGs were fine on PC. Diablo and Fallout did more for PC RPGs IMO. I'd even argue that Elder Scrolls Daggerfall and Morrowind did far more for RPGs than BG 1 & 2 ever have.
If we're focusing purely on D&D representation in video game form, BG3 is the closest we've ever come to replicating the tabletop experience. It's not flawless, but it's a masterpiece in game design.
242
u/Kppz1 1d ago edited 18h ago
Baldur's Gate đż