"There aren't even messages in the menus to tell you about the useless cosmetics store! How can this even be a game?" -Ubisoft Dev Probably
I'm getting Elden Ring Deja Vu.
Which means we're looking at another game of the year!
I understand that there are plenty of reasons to dislike a game, ANY game, BG3 included, but how tf "has no right to exist" is supposed to be an argument? Based on what, according to whom, because what?
Agreed
By their logic games like civ with its turn based fighting "had no right to exist" because counterstrike is popular...
Some people just enjoy being able to plan their actions and having a bird's eye perspective on things.
Not to mention: Pausing.
Oh god yes!
Especially since becoming a parent being able to pause is more or less a must. That and being able to save at any point.
save at any point
OMGS that means you're old enough, probably, to remember lying to your parents about not being at a save point so you just hafta keep playing a bit more…?
I'm old enough to have had games with no save at all. 😂
The original Zelda that could save your game was something out of the ordinary and a giant leap forward.
Agreed. As someone who likes counterstrike, civ, baldurs gate 3, and I'll even throw in the witcher, they all are fantastic games.
Just because some games are turn based, or isometric, or 2d, doesn't make them bad games. The gameplay mechanics in BG3 are fantastic. You can look around the battlefield to plan the most destructive attack possible, or rush in hoping for the best. You get to set the pace of the game. In turn, taking too long to strategize in counterstrike will give you a huge disadvantage, both different types of gameplay that have mechanics built around the intended gameplay.
I love being able to actually think about a battle and plan. Does it take me longer than it should? Probably. But setting up and killing an entire goblin camp with some well placed barrels and a candle is fun to me.
If anything, Ubisoft-Formula-Games have "no right to exist" anymore because it's literally the exact same game over and over and over, they just changed the perspective from 1st person to 3rd person depending on the IP the game gets released under...
If it's not made for ME it shouldn't exist.
That's it.
He wants a colorful amusement park RPG on rails that plays itself for him. He doesn't want to be bogged down by silly things like gameplay mechanics, he wants to paint by numbers.
You don't even climb a single radio tower let alone 300 of them.
My favorite is that the later Far Cry games mocked the trope that they invented. But then just added something slightly different. Ubisoft just can't help making checklists
I've played through Fallout 1 and 2 dozens of times.
I have yet to finish Fallout 4 or Fallout: New Vegas.
The sea change from "actual RPGs" to "shooters with occasional minor choices to make" enrages me.
Am I the one that’s out of touch? No, it’s the almost half a million players who are mistaken!
This aligns with my experience of a very particular kind of game designer. I worked with one who, in a casual conversation about games where someone said "there's no wrong way to have fun," they responded with "yes there is, and it's my job to tell people what the right way is".
This is not a systemic issue, at Ubisoft or anywhere else. It's a particularity of a kind of person who is deeply drawn to games, but who also doesn't see other people as, well, people. It's a person who has made friends with games and game systems because they're incapable of being friends with, well, sapient beings.
Video game studio projects tend to have multiple designers working on them, with the creative director (or just "director") and lead designer working on large scale design things - genre, core loop, etc - and progressively less senior designers working on progressively smaller, progressively more soul crushing design work. Think things like item design and balance. Weirdly enough, the ones who think they're the arbiter of fun don't generally progress very high up this chain.
Not in team-based design environments, at least.
You can't even pay to double the experience and money you get in game
I can imagine c-suites all over the industry scrambling to figure out what "no microtransactions" means
"You mean this game doesnt have constant pop ups, a giant arrow, repetitive companion dialogue OR flashing UI elements constantly reminding me what to do? How will I even know where I'm going?"
Personally, I just can't stand playing Larian Studio games. It's like playing with a vindictive DM. It was especially noticable in Divinity: OS2. I played as the skeleton guy who was permanently disguised. I'll encounter a random group of enemies.....and somehow, they just know to use heal on my undead guy to hurt him? He's disguised, what the fuck? Every enemy whether man, animal, or demon knew every weakness, knew which players had the lowest weaknesses, and would exploit the absolute fuck out of them. Exactly like a vindictive DM would.
Yeah I agree that's rough, and probably an unexpected interaction. That being said, other than that, I've played pretty much all Larian Games (even Divinity 2: The Dragon Knight Saga) and I've never felt like the game is working against me, but I have felt like the game is of punishing difficulty in some unexpected ways. When you make a game with so many permutations, there are bound to be issues with some of the edge cases. Not defending them, I'm happy you shared a legitimate complaint, unlike the OP review which isn't a legitimate complaint, but is clearly just salt.
Literally hundreds of thousands of players are proving him/her wrong as we speak.
"If you can't sync with location and see that damn bird fly around again, what the hell are you even doing with your life?"
I love turn based games. Not all of them, but a well made one is pretty sweet. I kinda stopped liking final fantasy at a certain point because it lost that
Octopath Traveler is one of my favorite games. I love retro style isometric turn based RPGs.
He just got frustrated because the tower got destroyed in the intro - how will he unlock the minimal now?
Reasoning like this is why they must work at Ubisoft. It's not like Ubisoft is known for their solid decision making.
this whole thing reads like " I don't like turn base games and this game sucks because it's turn based"
Do I misunderstood what based means or is this sarcasm?
It's not sarcasm. Just because someone says something "based" doesn't mean they're right. It is "based" in the sense that it is an extremely unpopular opinion and this reviewer is extremely unapologetic.
Honestly though, what makes this funny/sad is that this isn't the first time an Ubisoft dev has gotten mad at a new fantasy RPG - these people (same guy?) had a similar reaction to elden ring which also broke records and went against industry norms. These "norms" have been terrible for gamers because they've allowed publishers to claim that they're making "better games" just because they managed to squeeze out a little more graphical fidelity since the last iteration. Then an independent dev comes around and shows the world how utterly incompetent these mega-publishers are, and their response is to cry and spew nonsense about how "real games" are supposed to be.
Is this a corporate flunky? That's not how you do 1337speak. 7 is a T, not an I. Memento Morti guess works? But the phrase is memento Mori.
In actual critique, Ubisoft has no ground to complain about others games after shitting out the same trash unto death.
There have also been a number of big publishers complaining about bg3. That this shouldn't be used as a metric for RPGs because its such an outlier and offers too much to be at profitable. Which is telling.
Someone feels threatened.
Sounds like somebody's hunny mussy was rancid that day.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a story-rich, party-based RPG set in the universe of Dungeons & Dragons, where your choices shape a tale of fellowship and betrayal, survival and sacrifice, and the lure of absolute power. (Website)
If your post contains any possible spoilers, please:
Thank you!
