My biggest complaint about BG3 is the reviews, the complaints to be precise. The majority of them are not about the game. They are either about the title (why Baldur's Gate 3? Why why.....) or they are about the price tag (why the full price for early access... why why....). What makes this even more dramatic is that those complainers have not even played or seen the game yet.

Still, there are good/logical complaints. The people and companions are mostly jerks, they hate you for some reason. And for now, the game is quite buggy. Lips not moving while talking or camera glitching are two of the common problems. Visual bugs can be fixed but the problem with the unlikeable companions is something very hard to fix.

But the rest is very beautiful. The implementation of the 5th edition is fantastic. I noticed that the dice rolls are a little stingy. One mentioned that 80% of the rolls are below 10, which is similar to my own observation.

I think we will get a very lovely game once the EA period is over.

Granted, I have NOT played the game yet.

But, it doesn't strike me what Larian is doing here w/ BG3 is entirely what BioWare was doing w/ BG series. It's probably why many feel that way - and wonder why it's not titled Baldur's Gate: The Mind-Flayer Conundrum...or some sort of other sub-title.

Sure, it takes place in the BG region - but is it going to really follow that entire band of characters and story that BioWare made famous, when it's 100+ years later? Unless they are elven, immortal, resurrected, travelling through time/dimensions/parrallel universes - probably not.

And old-school BioWare isn't developing this either. I think many people - i.e. fans of the old Infinity Engine based games - probably want that.

BG3 is not doing the BioWare Real-time with pause and is not following BG2 right after those events immediately or even close.

Also, when you're throwing down $60 for a game - yeah, you want a great experience and something polished, whether it's in Early Access/In Development...or not and is Version 1.0. And certainly, when you're paying $ for a game - of course, I want it to be in a great state. Hence, why I likely won't be being this game until it gets a lot cheaper and/or actually hits Version 1.0....or maybe until they do an Enhanced Edition (like they did with Div: OS1 and Div: OS2).

I've been burned by buggy-as-heck games before like ES3: Morrowind on Day 1 - and yep, I'm trying not to get burned like that again. Great game, but I should've waited for a better edition with more patches behind and bought it way later - too many performance issues, CTD's, freezes, and other non-sense on Day 1. That game felt like it was still in Alpha or Early Access, IMHO.

Now, this all doesn't mean Larian's BG3 won't be great. I think it will be, in due time - it'll just be more of that Div: OS greatness that they've been doing...and then something likely more true to the D&D Table-top Experience (i.e. showing dice-rolls, more choice, turn-based combat, etc etc). Looks great, but...likely, I'll be waiting for it to be more polished.

Most of mine are over 10. It's probably just chance.

I totally agree. i think it's a great shame to see the game being review-bombed by people who haven't even tried it, over what seem to be fairly petty gripes about the name, price tag, etc.

I think all these critics need to bear in mind the following:

This is the first D&D licensed CRPG we have seen in almost 10 years. If it doesn't do well, chances will be very slim that we will be seeing any more D&D CRPGs, at least in the near future. If it does well, it might usher in a new wave of D&D CRPGs, like the infinity engine did. Who knows? They might even explore other D&D settings, Dragonlance ... Dark Sun ... Planescape? Wouldn't that be cool? If BG3 doesn't do well - it's practically guaranteed none of that is going to happen.

For me, that is a far bigger issue than these petty gripes about each person not getting their own, personal vision of what they wanted BG3 to be. As far as new D&D CRPGs, this is the only horse that is running, and that is going to be running. Sometimes, it's worth supporting something that you don't agree with 100%, because it represents at least some progress in the right direction and might lead to better things.

It's this simple: Do you want to see more D&D licensed CRPGs in future? If so, you'd better support this one.

(Disclaimer: having said all that, I admit I haven't bought/played the EA game yet and won't be doing so, unless they release it Linux native)

I'd like to see more RPGs in that setting, but with a system that makes some sense and is far, far less reliant on random chance, so not the D&D one.
But the argument is flawed in general. What's pretty clear is that if this will be a success, it'll likely lead to more like it, so those wanting something different won't help their cause by supporting it. And naming it BG3 definitely invited everyone who wants essentially a continuation of BG2, or at least a game that's very much in that style, to demand that and express their disappointment if it's not. Just naming it something like MysterD suggested would have changed this to some extent...

seems to be selling very well here, based on the number of reviews on the store page. (of course there could be many refunds too)

Sorry, but that makes little sense. The Forgotten Realms setting is intrinsically part of D&D. Random chance (aka dice rolls) have been an integral part of D&D (and RPGs in general) since the game was invented. If you don't want random dice rolls, then I'd have to question if the game you want is really an RPG. Of course, there were random dice rolls in the original BG games (perhaps hidden a little more 'under the hood').

I disagree. The thing is, this alternative option that all these people seem to want isn't going to happen. For a start, they all want different things, and you can never please everybody. Secondly, this is what Wizards of the Coast, the D&D IP owner, is deciding to do. There isn't going to be a second 'alternative' option to this. If the fanbase slaps them in the face, they are just going to put the D&D license back in the closet for another 10+ years. Therefore, their 'cause' is inherently futile and simply a non-starter. They are living in a fantasy that doesn't exist (no pun intended).

So, I see a bunch of people who are basically taking the view that, because they are not getting exactly what they want, they're going to go and piss in the well for everyone else.

Again, just to clarify, I'm not annoyed by people who have tried the game and don't like it. Of course, that's their prerogative. But, what pisses me off are all the people I am seeing who are review-bombing the game and trying to tear it down, who haven't even tried it. As the first D&D game we've had in almost 10 years, surely it at least deserves to be given a fair trial?

Why would it need to be? The lore and the gameplay system can very well be taken separately, and one can find one appealing and not the other.
Other systems have a much lower reliance on randomness than D&D, may have clear thresholds for success, even more so outside combat, and may allow player skill to compensate for the character's flaws and vice-versa.
So they shouldn't support it anyway, because it won't be what they want and at least not supporting it saves them the money. Those who want just what this is should support it, of course, and then we'll see the result.
Fair enough, when it comes to actual reviews, posted on game store pages or labeled as such on review sites, those should just be for people who played it. Opinions posted don't have that requirement though.

Exactly.

This here w/ BG1+2 (by BioWare) and now BG3 with a different dev (Larian) is similar to the Fallout situation.

When Fallout 1+2 came out (from Black Isle), those were party-based isometric turn-based RPG's with a choice/consequence system. When Bethesda got their hands on Fallout 3, it really was NOT Fallout 3. FO3 became a Bethesda-style open-world FPS/RPG combo of some kind.

Don't get me wrong, FO3 was great; but it was a much different kind of great than what FO2 was doing. You're splitting your fan-base, calling a game say Fallout 3...and it's MUCH different than those that were before it (i.e. Fallout 1+2). While you might possibly gain a ton of new fans here that never played a previous game - they (the long-time fans since Fallout 1+2) at least know by the title it could be something totally different, in some ways. They could at least be aware that something is different, by especially the lack of numbering and especially the sub-title; they might have to ask "I'm a FO1+2 fan, will this new Fallout game be for me?"

If Bethesda's Fallout 3 was titled say Fallout: Maryland, Fallout: DC or even Fallout: East Coast instead of FO3 that would've made me say, "Okay, is this something new and different here? Did they change the combat? Are there parties? Is this even a isometric game? Is this a shooter? What about a shooter/FPS hybrid? Or what?"

Even Fallout: Tactics had enough sense to not be a numbered title and just be a spin-off, since it was basically a Fallout 1+2 style combat game without some of the decision-making and RPG stuff.

If anything that seemed like it was following what FO2 was doing, well...to me, Wasteland 3 is on that path. Kind of makes sense, since Brian Fargo is at the helm here of Wasteland series again...and WL was a precursor to FO series anyways.

If Larian and Hasbro called BG3 here say Baldur's Gate: The Mind-Flayer Conundrum - my first question would be..."Not titled BG3; hmmm, is this something new? Or even say Baldur's Gate: Rebirth, I'd already be saying "Ah ha, this is a totally different BG game; and likely not entirely going to have the same characters and/or same time period; and/or maybe wonder if the combat will be different."

Even XCOM: Chimera Squad...dropped the XCOM1+2 numbers; and did it right. Even more so w/ a focus on character and storytelling - It feels like it's more of a spin-off than the previous 2 Firaxis XCOM style games.

I see what you're saying, but I guess I don't see the need to get so hung up on the name.

We all know there isn't ever going to be a BG3 made by Bioware on the infinity engine, that is a direct continuation of the original games, set in that Forgotten Realms time period. For many, many reasons. And I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that's what this game is.

I agree that it probably should be viewed as more of a 'reboot' than a continuation. But, a name is just a name, right? If they've made a great, immersive RPG, with licensed D&D content that plays well and has a good storyline, surely it's worth giving it a chance? If you're saying you would like it, if only it were called something else, but just not with the BG3 name ... that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I didn't. At least not the first one, am still yet to play the 2nd. And what I liked of D&D games in general was definitely despite the system.
And my answers referred to two different things, what I'd want (Forgotten Realms lore/setting, different gameplay rules) and what those looking for an actual Baldur's Gate 3 are likely to want. What Baldur's Gate 3 seems to be now doesn't suit either of these viewpoints... And may be farther from the desires of the original BG fans than from mine, since I see that even among those who do (did?) enjoy D&D, there's a serious backlash against what WotC did with it after 3.5E, so being a faithful implementation of 5E will definitely be undesirable for that crowd.

A name is more than a name. It's also a brand.

Certain things are expected with a brand, no matter what. Period. To me, with BG3 - I do expect certain things.

BioWare defined BG back in the late 90's to early 2000's for PC CRPG's with BG being a real-time with pause party-based CRPG. Thus, BG also represents that, since the last game doing this was BG2: Throne of Bhaal.

When I hear BG3 - I expect a true-sequel to BG2's story; real-time with pause combat; and this D&D rule-based game to take place in the Forgotten Realms in the BG area.

We're in an era where games like Pillars of Eternity series are literally bringing back that BG style CRPG game with real-time with pause style of combat.

We have games made today like Double Dragon IV and even Streets of Rage 4 done in their old styles - which are also, in many ways, very true and very close to their older games that were on their older respective console platforms from way back in the day.

Turn-based combat is a totally different animal compared to RT with pause, IMHO. Often, it can be taken much slower and much more methodical and strategic.

Larian has the D&D rules and FR setting with BG area; that's for sure. I'm sure Larian will offer up lots of choices, decisions, and whatnot in their CRPG's - it's what they've been expanding on more and more w/ each title since the original Divine Divinity back in the CDV-publishing days.

I'm still sure Larian's BG3 will be great, once it's polished-up and actually "finished" with Version 1.0 - and likely even more so improved with an Enhanced Edition - but it certainly won't be a true sequel to BG3.

Will I buy it?At some point in time, absolutely But, not now. Not until it's out of Early Access, much cheaper, more polished, and when I've put more of a dent in my already ridiculously huge backlog.

And honestly, I probably should tackle Divinity: OS1 in full first; and eventually buy Div: OS2, starts that; and finish that. B/c, TBH, Larian's BG3 here looks like really D&D meets Divinity: OS3 to me.

It sounds like you really want a different game entirely, that isn't D&D. You might like the D:OS games, if you haven't tried them, or maybe Pathfinder? Also, I don't know if you have played anything that uses D&D versions after 2nd ed, but I'd say 3rd edition and later seem to be a bit less dice-prone than 2nd, so you might find you prefer the later rulesets.

Yeah, 3.5 ed is my favorite too. At least 5th seems like it is better than 4th edition. Unfortunately, WotC don't seem very inclined to go back in time, either with the rulesets or Forgotten Realms, despite what the fans might want.

Pillars of Eternity 2 got a turn-based mode though. So did Pathfinder. There's a lot of discontent regarding RTWP, which I understand, since I don't find it enjoyable at all, at least not for party-based CRPGs. If BG3 was RTWP, I would never buy it. Complaints that it's D:OS with D&D rules is actually a recommendation as far as I'm concerned.

Larian have switched things up in a series before, with their own games, namely Divine Divinity (Diablo-ish) and then Divinity 2 (Oblivion-ish).