You understand that the game isn't new, just new to Steam, right? Having zero hours on Steam doesn't mean anything when they forced all the people who genuinely wanted to play it to figure out that it was dogshit on their own launcher first.
Review bombing is when a game gets poorly rated for something, mostly completely unrelated to the game, but due to something surrounding it - be that a publisher decision like deciding to ban and not give Blitzchung his prize money for saying support Hong Kong, or some perceived language/political/regional slights like with Nier Automata. Tons of examples out here in this category, where legitimately good games are being affected by somewhat legitimate but not relevant reasons.
Overwatch 2 being poorly rated on Steam isn't review bombing. It's gamers saying how shit the game is, like the false promises for Cyberpunk 2077, the addition of denuovo to games, or horrendously egregious microtransactions added to games, like with horse armor or the entirety of everything thst happened leading up to Star Wars Battlefront II (the second). These may be legitimately good games severely affected by terrible decisions from the developers, publishers, or marketing team. Being poorly rated for having egregious microtransactions isn't being review bombed, it's highlighting a serious problem in the games design.
I understand why the latter is so easily mixed up with the former, but it's something that happens as users and media outlets erode the meaning of these words. It's disingenuous to say that something is review-bombed when it's poorly rated for legitimate reasons but as you said it's something that is now interpreted that way.
There's also something to be said about Valve's internal metric for review bombing which is the increased number of reviews leaning in a particular direction due to some external force. For example, Assassins Creed Unity being given for free led to positive reviews but was excluded from being counted as a review bombing, compared to something negative like being completely unable to leave reviews at all on the Epic Games store, leading players to leave reviews on Steam.
In regards to the reviewson Steam, given that the game has been out but just released on this platform, it's still not review bombing. Are there joke reviews? Always in basically every game since before steam points awards. That doesn't mean they were being review bombed, that's just any other joke reviews.
Tl;Dr is overwatch 2 being poorly rated for something that doesn't have anything to do with the game? Did Blizzard not give prize winnings out? Did the developer make a racy tweet 10 years ago? Are non-localised players upset about something not culturally localized?
No? It's being poorly reviewed due to changes, removals, minimal upgrades, and increased microtransactions?
Poorly reviewed for bad decisions. Not review bombed.
"Aaron Keller gets that (people are upset). "That announcement was about an ambitious project that we ultimately couldn't deliver."
On one end, he could be lying, after all it's not like they didn't have working prototypes and cinematic for the new game mode that wasn't deliverable
Or.
He is telling the truth. Then making people return to the office impacted blizzard's bottom line more then they thought and was a stupid decision that they should end ASAP.
Playing the matches is fun, since it is just Overwatch. Literally the same gameplay as Overwatch, but with 5 per team instead of 6.
In between is an assault of micro transaction manipulation bullshit that ruins the experience. PvE is hidden behind a paywall, except for the free stuff that is a retread of the seasonal PvE from Overwatch. I know this because I gave it some hours to see if it was as bad as people were saying.
People hate it because it was supposed to be an improvement but instead it was just another attempt to bleed the players dry. It might be the only game I have reviewed negatively on steam because the monetization really is that bad that it ruins the whole game.
Remember that they asked for the BG license just after they finished D:OS1. The game was what they used to prove themselves. The game mechanics is probably what they always had planned for if they was ever allowed to create BG3.
I’m glad for it. The game mechanics of surface elements and mixing to create new effects was fun but way overused in D:OS series. After 2 games, their third got the right balance between fun and annoying, I think.
I agree, all of that would have been fine if they called it as it is: original sin DnD edition. Instead the title is Baldur’s Gate “3” and I invite anyone to tell me what connects this game to the originals. Nothing I’ve seen so far is even remotely reminiscent of the original games and that’s why I find it laughable that Larian “hopes they did bioware proud”. What a joke.
Same IP; returning characters from the original series; revisiting important locations from the original series; uses a D&D ruleset for resolution; expands upon the story of the Bhaalspawn crisis over a century after the incident, especially via the
Yes because mechanical fidelity is the lowest priority in continuing the series. Continuation of the story and tonal fidelity matter a lot more. The Fallout series went from a turn based 2.5D isometric RPG to a real time action RPG, and one of the best instalments in the series follows the latter formula.
To be fair, that one Fallout in the latter installments that best fits the original tone of the 2D games had many of the same people that made the original games, including the original designer and writer. If Obsidian was given another shot, now that those people no longer are at Obsidian, I question how good it would be compared to New Vegas.
Since when has gameplay been relegated to lowest priority when making a sequel to a GAME. I understand now what the original fallout fans must have felt when they were graced by fallout 3 and the masses praised it.
Tone and story are Larian tier, i.e. mediocre, and far removed from the original games. There is no fidelity to what bioware built, just pretence.
Baldur’s Gate is part of a setting several decades older than the game franchise of the same name. It was an official setting of D&D a decade before the first game. In the sense of a ROLEPLAYING game, fidelity to the source material is paramount.
The original games were developed at the end of the life cycle of the edition they used for the mechanics. The ruleset got a major revision the same year BG2 was released. There have been several major editions since. Edition warring aside, no one can argue that the Forgotten Realms played in 5th edition isn’t the same Forgotten Realms played in AD&D 2E. The tone and continued narrative of the setting is the key feature in maintaining the soul of a property, not mechanical fidelity.
The game respects the official canon of the Forgotten Realms, including the canonical ending to BG2 where Gorion’s Ward rejected divinity and eventually led to Bhaal’s revival. Characters from the original series return as companions for BG3, with stories acknowledging the Bhaalspawn crisis. One of the origin playthroughs is the exact same story as the first Baldur’s Gate.
If your only complaint is lack of real time with pause then I reckon it’s you who isn’t the real Baldur’s Gate fan.
Bioware themselves took many liberties with the source material to create their games, not sure wtf you’re on about. Larian made a direct sequel to Bioware’s Baldurs Gate, the tone was set by Bioware not the source material.
Baldur’s Gate is narrative heavy and Larian’s writers fell flat on their faces trying to replicate it.
Real time combat was a defining feature of the original games. I was prepared to accept turnbased combat but the game fails in too many other aspects to overlook.
I invite anyone to tell me what connects this game to the originals
the plot is basically the same as the first game and the second game combined and mixed with some new elements to make it unique and is set 100 years or so after the events of the second game.
The city itself
all the recurring characters, including the villains
The play style
the setting
The only thing that doesn’t connect them is the rule edition, and you’re not the same protagonist. BG1 and 2 used AD&D2e. BG3 uses 5e.
I’m not sure why everyone exalts larian as some master story writer now when everything they’ve done has merely been passable. It doesn’t matter how similar the story is if it’s told like shit.
Yes, they did manage to include the city of Baldur’s Gate, I’m impressed.
Recurring characters would be a treat if the game didn’t suck in all other respects.
The play style? Wtf? Where’s the real time combat, 6 party system, single open map, etc. Play style couldn’t be anymore different.
I’m not sure how much the setting has changed since 2E but Larian’s Faerun feels nothing like the original games.
If you think the story is told like shit, I gotta know what stories and games you actually like. Because it ain’t BG1 and 2.
The forgotten realms lore has changed tremendously, dude. WOTC is going absolutely crazy with retcons and changes lately. Where have you been? Like the entire pantheon of Gods from even 3.5e is totally different. There has been a huge cataclysmic event that almost destroyed magic for a second time (the first being the Netherese empire’s destruction; Karsus’ Folly) and much of the landscape too. It’s practically a different world. This stuff isn’t Larian’s fault. It’s literally Wizard’s fault.
Also: BG1 and 2 didn’t have a single map. They did have a world map screen that connected all the actual maps, but it didn’t really mean anything. It was basically what the fast travel screen is now. 🙄
I hated the divinity original sin games with a fucking Passion. Stupid fucking jsnky garbage combat mechanics go stick sn exploding barrel up your fucking collective asses, Larian.
I tried the baldurs gate 3 bets once with some friends. A couple hours was all I can take. It’s as much like d and d as removing your eyeball and fucking yourself in the ass is.
Game mechanic wise, their original titles aren’t even much different in how they are setup from old Bioware titles. Specifically a combination of Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR and Jade Empire. The story is almost exactly the same as the first one, with a blend of elements from the second one, remixed into an entirely new tale.
I’m pretty sure they made them proud. They copied what was good, and improved upon what wasn’t.
I would love more command & conquer games. There hasn’t been anything new in a long time that has that feeling of collecting resources and building bases and troops.
Holy fuck, this looks incredible. For context, Fat Shark have been working very hard to address the criticisms of the game at launch, and they’ve really, really listened to the community in a big way. Many concerns have been addressed already, and the two big ones left were the lack of missions (which is slowly improving, but mapmaking takes time, so I can’t be too salty on that one) and the lack of class variety. This looks like it completely addresses that last issue.
Back when the game launched I wrote a review on steam that basically said “Despite all its flaws I enjoy this game a lot and will continue to play it, but I can’t in good conscience recommend it.” Every now and I go back and ask myself if it’s time to go back and finally flip that review to a “Recommended”. Every time so far the answer has been no, not yet. This might finally be the thing that pushes it over into a yes.
I haven’t played much since launch. I liked the game, but it felt like there was still a lot missing so I figured I’d put it down and play something else. Now I’m busy with bg3 but it may be time to jump back into darktide soon.
My only complaint is how horny everyone is. I act nice to people and they wanna jump on my dick. Literally had a mind flayer try to smash my pelvis and I’m like DUDE MELLOW OUT
Absolutely agreed. I asked one person if they wanted to share a drink at a celebration (that’s just social decorum, right?) and have done no flirting before or after that and now that person talks to me like they’ve been in love with me their whole life.
And I get the idea that you want to let everyone sleep with their favorite NPC regardless of who they’re playing as but it just feels weird to me that everyone is so both pansexual and horny. It makes me feel like nobody has any preferences and just falls in love with you because you’re the main character.
And in general it also lessens the sense of camaraderie a bit for me when it comes down to sex so much. I wish some companions had other interests and had no desire to get in your pants.
I think it’s great for people to have representation but I’m hoping that someone makes a mod to turn it all off. I also really just want an adventure without having to deal with horny party members.
I think there is already a mod that turns off all approval gains, but beware that I think this also blocks off several companions’ personal quests, since they’re related to the relationship. At least that’s what I heard.
The mod I’m using tweaks approval so the gains are smaller for little stuff, losses are bigger and important story decisions etc become more significant (in both directions). I unfortunately didn’t find it until I was already near-max with several companions but it should in theory make it more difficult to end up with everyone being in love with you before the third long rest.
To be fair it almost feels like a homage to early bioware. I remember a few bioware games that had this issue. I remember the forums being full of complaints about surprise romances in mass effect or dragon age.
I do think the issue is more prevalent I’m BG3 though.
It’s made worse by Larians decision to absolutely juice the approval gains when going from Early Access to Full Release, apparently. Makes everything move way too fast and really exacerbates the issue.
pcgamer.com
Gorące