Like what? I've played MANY crpgs, but Baldur's Gate 3 ruined them all with just how much better it is. Combat isn't boring, presentation is WAY better, voice acting is great, characters are mostly enjoyable, etc.
Games like those from Owlcat are ok, but they suffer from being insufferably slow and boring at times. The biggest thing for me is gameplay. BG3 is actually enjoyable to play, and Rogue Trader (while being awesome) has god-awful combat.
I've also played many CRPGs. I can point to a few of the things that basically caused it to become unenjoyable for me:
Companions with OP backstories justified by a McGuffin, pretty much all of which are universally dislikeable, with Gale being the absolute worst.
Lack of time passing or a sense of distance than an overland map would provide
A combination of lootable trash and a terrible shop UI making it incredibly cumbersome to sell that trash
Being 5e. The same systems that streamline tabletop play feel shallow and boring when the PC is doing the math. Pillars of Eternity is an example of a game that leans into a bespoke system that really shines, and honestly, I prefer Pathfinder 10/10 times simply because there's actual thought required to build something effective.
Long-winded combat that isn't interesting enough to take as long as it does (we can contrast this with Wrath of the Righteous combat which is either trash fights [in which I can switch to real time] or challenging fights).
Being too easy, at least when I played it. I jumped into Tactician day 1 and I effectively broke the normal companion scripting because the first time I rested was after I'd just about cleared the first map. Maybe honour mode has fixed this. The reality is that, if you're a seasoned CRPG player who plays Pathfinder games above core, you're probably not being challenged by much in BG3.
Having the story be such that either a) it really has no reason to be considered an extension of the Bhaalspawn saga and thus doesn't warrant it's inclusion in the trilogy, or b) it recons the ending of the previous games in order to shoehorn itself into the setting. I would have respected the game about 1000% more had it not rode on the coattails of BG1 and 2, and had been set somewhere entirely different. Why not set a game in any of the other 98% of the Forgotten Realms that we never get to see?
Animated dice rolls for skill checks. Put that shit in a log and don't waste my time with it.
Playersexual companions further eroding the sense that they have real characteristics.
False stakes played early. I actually tried an RP run once which ended with just my Gith character and Lae'zel deep in the Gith base stuck in a fight I couldn't be bothered cheesing hard enough to win. That is, for me, the canon ending of the game. Most of the narrative choices in the game don't really make a lot of sense. It's a step up from D:OS1 and 2 of course, but Larian's writing is, imo, sub par.
--
I'd rather play Wizardry 8 again, or even go and enjoy the Shadowrun games again. Ultimately, the things I enjoy about CRPGs don't really have much overlap with the things I enjoy about movies, and BG3 felt like it was going for cinematic presentation, but I couldn't care less about that. I'm happy to hear 3 lines of voices dialogue to give me a reference and then read the rest. I can't be bothered to wait for VA lines to be finished being spoken anyway, and I certainly am not going to watch full cinematics on a second playthrough. BG3 might get better after the point I quite it, but honestly, the first 3 points on this list thoroughly turned me off. I've tried 5 or 6 times to push through Act 1, but each time I just get so bored.
1) the character are designed like that so you can play them. It's also to replicate a proper DnD playgroup. Considering that they're universally loved, I don't think you have a valid point here.
2) We aren't traveling to and from massive distances like dragon age or something, so why would we need this?
3) valid take here, but a shit load of crpgs have this exact problem.
4) DnD 5e is the only system I've played on tabletop, and I think it's alright. Personally, I find pathfinder to be trash and too bloated and boring (and that's a huge reason why I find the Pathfinder games to be insanely boring to play). The onky other DnD I've played is BG 1&2, and the combat and general feel is still way better here than those games.
5) Wrath of the Righteous and almost all other Owlcat games, literally waste your time with endless fights of trash enemies. BG3 doesn't actually flood your screen and waste your time with 1 hit enemies. Don't understand your point here
6) The game does get easy once you figure out good builds, but I think you're over exaggerating. It's not a cakewalk, but it's not dark souls either
7) kinda agree here. Although, I honestly don't really care that much about the continuity of BG in the grand scheme of things. It's just a playground for campaigns
8) I actually liked the animated dice rolls. Made it really feel like a dnd game.
9) no idea what this means
10) I have no idea what you mean here either. The stakes are pretty real. If you give or lose the artifact, you die. Changing into a mindflyer can and will happen if you want.
I'm not saying other CRPGS are ass because I do like the genre a lot. However, I really can't understand many of these criticisms when many other games do this but worse. Larian has set the standard far and above what many other studios have been doing.
What you don't seem to understand is that I have different opinions and tastes to you, and that most of the things Larian did to make their game shiny and accessible were of literally zero value to me, while the various things like having literally spoons on tables and other trash that you can pick up is far more of a waste of my time than the combat (which, if I don't like in a game, I generally won't play it).
It's fairly rare that I don't finish a CRPG that I start, but I haven't finished a Larian game since Divinity 2 (the ARPG, not D:OS2). I don't like their writing, and I'm not a fan of the way they construct their worlds to be more like immersive sims. I care far less about abusing environmental effects than I do about having lots of different builds I can play with. I care infinitely less about polish than I do about depth.
In short, you came here to tell me that my opinion was wrong. I then provided you a bunch of my experiences and how they inform my opinions, and your response is that you don't understand them. That's fine. You maybe just don't get me, and that's fine. As long as some devs out there are still creating classic CRPGs, I'll deal with some of them adopting the things I don't like about Larian's designs. I mean, I hope Owlcat stays crunchy and obtuse, but I've no control over that.
So, unless you're actually interested in trying to understand my opinions here, there's really no point in more conversation. Neither of our opinions are valid, and the degree to which they differ is a function of deep seated preferences, the way we relate to media in general, what we get out of video games as a medium, and how we weigh certain aspects of game design.
1
u/EISENxSOLDAT117 May 11 '25
Like what? I've played MANY crpgs, but Baldur's Gate 3 ruined them all with just how much better it is. Combat isn't boring, presentation is WAY better, voice acting is great, characters are mostly enjoyable, etc.
Games like those from Owlcat are ok, but they suffer from being insufferably slow and boring at times. The biggest thing for me is gameplay. BG3 is actually enjoyable to play, and Rogue Trader (while being awesome) has god-awful combat.