In all fairness, I had written a review with mostly positive remarks when this game was first launched and I had only recently begun to adjust to the last chapter. But the letdown that Act 3 left me with made me ponder a little more on how much Baldur's Gate 3's lofty promises were actually unfulfilled, and how, stripped of all bias and status quo notions, it's a game that's not quite as fulfilling as it purports to be. I hate to be unfair and categorise this game as not recommended so I'll go the opposite route. However, I must say this review is heavily opinionated and I found Baldur's Gate 3 more underwhelming than I found it groundbreaking.

Starting off, I'd like to clarify myself by saying that I have no complaints regarding the game's performance as an intermediate roleplaying game. I am by no means implying that it is a low quality production or completely unsuccessful endeavor. However, like with any game, it has its shortcomings as well as its assets and they need to be addressed. In the current, almost industrialized market, it is definitely not impossible to find properly done roleplaying games with a mature and striking depth, but it can be difficult. Therefore, while I can understand to some extent to hope Baldur's Gate 3 to be some sort of a saviour to a genre that has been suffering a long-term decline, it is in no way the absolute roleplaying or D&D experience, nor is its performance equivalent to the hype it's getting.

I don't think a proper and healthy Baldur's Gate 3 review can be done without touching on the prequels, and although they span quite different time periods and personas, this game is heavily fuelled by the classics and naturally, Forgotten Realms lore. If you're relatively unfamiliar with the saga, it's worth catching up on a selection of the plot points and figures that preoccupied the originals. Time of Troubles aka The Fall of the Gods is one of the most widely known and debated chronicles in the Realms history. Central to all this turmoil is the theft of the Tablets of Fate, by two members of the Dead Three: Myrkull and Bane, causing the entire pantheon and the Weave to collapse. The classics narrate the tale of one of Bhaal's children, Abdel Adrian in canon. I personally assumed largely because the story analysis of the campaign has already been done in both the video games and the novels, with Bhaal being merely a fragment of a deity as of now, that Larian would not be rehashing the same controversies. But that is not the case, it's a game that refuses to venture out of its comfort zone. Another major event discussed in Baldur's Gate 3 is Descent into Avernus, yet another Baldur's Gate campaign published for 5e. Players descend into the first layer of Baator and face Archdevil Zariel, which ends with tieflings and Elturel saved in canon. Baldur's Gate 3 takes place merely a few months after this incident.

While none of these events are the direct narrative of the game itself, once you subtract them from the equation, one is left with nothing more than a rather stale but typical mindflayer kidnapping. Hence one of my biggest complaints about this game: it fails to capitalise on the rich nature of the universe it is set in. It feels like a patchwork of a few familiar figures and themes from the classics and canonical events of the time period it references, and as such, I feel it's a game that lacks personality or authenticity, that puts all its burden on overdone fan service. It oscillates between catering to fans of the original games, myself included, endearing itself to the mainstream community with status quo storytelling, and serving incels in search of their fantasy pornography; had Larian put all that effort into creating an engaging, genuine and immersive plot rather than this quest for conformity, we might have had a much more admirable game on our hands.

A further copilot mechanism that has also fallen victim to this easily digestible search for likeability is the companions. The party banter is quite loose, as all the characters lack depth and sincerity. The most superficial characteristics of their race, religion or class are exaggerated and embellished, and it is hoped that a decent travelling companion will come out of this once a few typical sob stories that do not differ much from one another are explored in a somewhat wide range. A wizard infatuated with Mystra? It's already been done countless of times. A sardonic elf who doesn't know when or how to tune down the ♥♥♥ talk? Anyone I'd find walking down the street. The githyanki who won't shut up with guttural swearing? Come on, now. A similar inadequacy could be spotted in the villains just as well. It speaks volumes about Larian's character writing in this game that companions such as Jaheira and Minsc, who have already established lore, are some of the only heartfelt and fleshed out personas in the game.

From a roleplaying point of view, I don't think the game is particularly innovative or revolutionary. Is it bad, not at all. It's true that you can influence the story in many contexts, and some of the interactions are quite fluid. But it isn't any more groundbreaking than solving a puzzle in an escape room. It does the most necessary things that a roleplaying game has to do in order to be considered a roleplaying game. Rather than an immersion that dominates the whole game, we see a more modest attempt of this. In my opinion, Act 1 is much more successful in those terms.

The impression of freedom the game conveys is a bit deceptive as well, and I attribute this to the fact that our fantasy roleplaying game vocabulary has long since shrunk. But whether what makes a role-playing game liberating is the ability to climb every wall and stand on every stone, or the limitlessness of what the world has to offer, is where we can differ. Baldur's Gate 3 offers a space you can navigate with ease, absolutely. With a few scrolls in your pocket, there is no destination one cannot reach, no door one cannot open. But the problem is that there is not much behind that door that is worth pulling the staff up and casting the spell. The player can do many things, true, but the game does not take sufficient responsibility to thrill the player.

Also, weak imitations of a dungeon. Dungeons are my favourite part of D&D and I'm truly disappointed in that regard. They lack the level richness and storytelling of Durlag Tower, Watchtower, Arcanum dungeons and even Caed Nua, and they lack the ambiance that makes D&D what it is.

In all fairness, I had written a review with mostly positive remarks when this game was first launched and I had only recently begun to adjust to the last chapter. But the letdown that Act 3 left me with made me ponder a little more on how much Baldur's Gate 3's lofty promises were actually unfulfilled, and how, stripped of all bias and status quo notions, it's a game that's not quite as fulfilling as it purports to be. I hate to be unfair and categorise this game as not recommended so I'll go the opposite route. However, I must say this review is heavily opinionated and I found Baldur's Gate 3 more underwhelming than I found it groundbreaking. Starting off, I'd like to clarify myself by saying that I have no complaints regarding the game's performance as an intermediate roleplaying game. I am by no means implying that it is a low quality production or completely unsuccessful endeavor. However, like with any game, it has its shortcomings as well as its assets and they need to be addressed. In the current, almost industrialized market, it is definitely not impossible to find properly done roleplaying games with a mature and striking depth, but it can be difficult. Therefore, while I can understand to some extent to hope Baldur's Gate 3 to be some sort of a saviour to a genre that has been suffering a long-term decline, it is in no way the absolute roleplaying or D&D experience, nor is its performance equivalent to the hype it's getting. I don't think a proper and healthy Baldur's Gate 3 review can be done without touching on the prequels, and although they span quite different time periods and personas, this game is heavily fuelled by the classics and naturally, Forgotten Realms lore. If you're relatively unfamiliar with the saga, it's worth catching up on a selection of the plot points and figures that preoccupied the originals. Time of Troubles aka The Fall of the Gods is one of the most widely known and debated chronicles in the Realms history. Central to all this turmoil is the theft of the Tablets of Fate, by two members of the Dead Three: Myrkull and Bane, causing the entire pantheon and the Weave to collapse. The classics narrate the tale of one of Bhaal's children, Abdel Adrian in canon. I personally assumed largely because the story analysis of the campaign has already been done in both the video games and the novels, with Bhaal being merely a fragment of a deity as of now, that Larian would not be rehashing the same controversies. But that is not the case, it's a game that refuses to venture out of its comfort zone. Another major event discussed in Baldur's Gate 3 is Descent into Avernus, yet another Baldur's Gate campaign published for 5e. Players descend into the first layer of Baator and face Archdevil Zariel, which ends with tieflings and Elturel saved in canon. Baldur's Gate 3 takes place merely a few months after this incident. While none of these events are the direct narrative of the game itself, once you subtract them from the equation, one is left with nothing more than a rather stale but typical mindflayer kidnapping. Hence one of my biggest complaints about this game: it fails to capitalise on the rich nature of the universe it is set in. It feels like a patchwork of a few familiar figures and themes from the classics and canonical events of the time period it references, and as such, I feel it's a game that lacks personality or authenticity, that puts all its burden on overdone fan service. It oscillates between catering to fans of the original games, myself included, endearing itself to the mainstream community with status quo storytelling, and serving incels in search of their fantasy pornography; had Larian put all that effort into creating an engaging, genuine and immersive plot rather than this quest for conformity, we might have had a much more admirable game on our hands. A further copilot mechanism that has also fallen victim to this easily digestible search for likeability is the companions. The party banter is quite loose, as all the characters lack depth and sincerity. The most superficial characteristics of their race, religion or class are exaggerated and embellished, and it is hoped that a decent travelling companion will come out of this once a few typical sob stories that do not differ much from one another are explored in a somewhat wide range. A wizard infatuated with Mystra? It's already been done countless of times. A sardonic elf who doesn't know when or how to tune down the sex talk? Anyone I'd find walking down the street. The githyanki who won't shut up with guttural swearing? Come on, now. A similar inadequacy could be spotted in the villains just as well. It speaks volumes about Larian's character writing in this game that companions such as Jaheira and Minsc, who have already established lore, are some of the only heartfelt and fleshed out personas in the game. From a roleplaying point of view, I don't think the game is particularly innovative or revolutionary. Is it bad, not at all. It's true that you can influence the story in many contexts, and some of the interactions are quite fluid. But it isn't any more groundbreaking than solving a puzzle in an escape room. It does the most necessary things that a roleplaying game has to do in order to be considered a roleplaying game. Rather than an immersion that dominates the whole game, we see a more modest attempt of this. In my opinion, Act 1 is much more successful in those terms. The impression of freedom the game conveys is a bit deceptive as well, and I attribute this to the fact that our fantasy roleplaying game vocabulary has long since shrunk. But whether what makes a role-playing game liberating is the ability to climb every wall and stand on every stone, or the limitlessness of what the world has to offer, is where we can differ. Baldur's Gate 3 offers a space you can navigate with ease, absolutely. With a few scrolls in your pocket, there is no destination one cannot reach, no door one cannot open. But the problem is that there is not much behind that door that is worth pulling the staff up and casting the spell. The player can do many things, true, but the game does not take sufficient responsibility to thrill the player. Also, weak imitations of a dungeon. Dungeons are my favourite part of D&D and I'm truly disappointed in that regard. They lack the level richness and storytelling of Durlag Tower, Watchtower, Arcanum dungeons and even Caed Nua, and they lack the ambiance that makes D&D what it is.