Open link in next tab
Best Video Games of This Generation
https://opencritic.com/browse/all
Browse the top rated games of all-time. The top critics in gaming. All in one place.
https://opencritic.com/browse/all
Browse the top rated games of all-time. The top critics in gaming. All in one place.
Divinity: Original Sin 2, Larian's previous game is #13 and they did that one when the studio was a fraction of the size it is now and on a miniscule budget when compared to BG3. It's just a wonderful studio, full of talent and enthusiasm that starts from the top.
Yeah and dos2 they really figured out the formula. Bg3 feels basically like dos2 but with a lot more story and cinematics, but not to say dos2 didn't already have a ton too. It's a good thing though, both games are amazing.
I really like that dice roll mechanic they added in BG3, it's highly satisfying. But yeah, mechanically D:OS2 and BG3 are pretty much the same. I hope BG3 makes people give D:OS2 a try.
Honestly that's my biggest complaint tbh. I just don't like DnD combat. Miss rates are way to high and feel awful. It's way too RNG and I have to save scum like crazy.
I'm happy to keep the systems different like this. That way D:OS and BG continue to be different play experiences, because I do want a D:OS3
I absolutely adore their feedback/early access system.
All games should have an early access like that. Not a shitty way to release a crap full of bugs to steam out, but a very analytic/data and feedback base way to improve the game. Basically giving the players a very large demo that can be easily changed in order to improve it.
Have you played Baldur's Gate 1 recently? 2E is a nightmare of THACO and instant death waiting around every corner. Weapons break constantly, mages inevitably hold your entire party, it's very easy to wander off in the wrong direction and die, NPCs have wonky stats that cannot be respecced. Save scumming is mandatory unless you really, really know your stuff.
The writing is still amazing, though.
BG3 does not feel like it came out in 1998.
The lethality of the world in 1&2 contributed to so many memorable moments in them, for me at least.
There’s something different about figuring out step by step how it is even possible to beat the enemy that wrecked your shit as soon as you walked into the room, versus grinding out a more typical battle. I’m not saying it’s better, or that BG3 has to be that way, but it is definitely a big part of this particular series for me.
For example, I have vivid memories of running into mind flayers, and fights with certain dragons, and the demogorgon, and Kangaxx, and even the first time getting to the gnoll stronghold.
Instant death like being thrown off a cliff? :D
Thac0 is not intuitive, but it's not the end of the world either.
And no, you don't need any mage in your party.
Man I feel like we played a different game.
I wouldn't expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven't played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn't submitted their review yet, and usually they're early. The game is just really big.
They get memed a lot about this, but I actually agree with that ORAS review. The water does hurt navigation for a huge chunk of the game.
I also agree but for different reasons...
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on 'types'. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you'll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it's just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It's been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
It really is bad design. I have no idea how it became a meme when the criticism is so obviously linked to this
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you've got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
'over-reliance on Water Pokémon' or 'some routes are boringly easy' would both be infinitely better sentences than 'too much water', which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
'too much water' was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you're set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
Nope, here's the Know Your Meme page (IGN itself no longer shows the pros/cons section)
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn't exactly an industry darling.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
I mean yeah dude and bg3 is a brilliant effing game you saying it doesn't deserve great ratings?
Haven't played yet but my friends rave on how good it is that they don't have shell out more money for micro-transactions.
I'm playing a female tiefling and I was tempted just to see what all the fuss was about
I'm excited for BG3 but I guess I struggle to see why it needs to be compared to TotK at all. Feels like that is selling both games a bit short. They aren't really that similar.
Which is a perfect example of the irrelevance of awards, and not just in gaming but pretty much any other subject. The fact I like pizza doesn't influence how much I love cake and people who love soup are also right.
I think it's a fair question that if both are transcendental games, which transcends over the other?
My argument would be that one doesn't transcend over the other. It's probably obvious but I also think numbered review scores are inherently flawed, because the metric is subjective and meaningless.
I much prefer a tiers system. These are both top tier games. Anyone can agree they are of exemplary quality and represent some of the best their genre has to offer. Any argument beyond that very quickly devolves into squabbles over subjective preference and that is a bit pointless to me.
As an example, a few of my favorite games of all time are Earthbound, Half-Life, Super Mario World, Metroid Prime, and Skyrim. I would rank all 5 of these games in my top tier. But what point is there in trying to rank them amongst each other? They have nothing to do with one another, so I have no meaningful way to compare them. If I use numbering, would I rank Earthbound a 9.7 and Metroid Prime a 9.5 and that means Earthbound is a better game? 2 tenths better? What does that even mean? I just don't find value in that kind of arbitrary comparison.
I can't agree it's that easy a win at all. Both are outstanding games, doing very different things excellently
BG3 is immensely good and I'm really enjoying it so far. I have to say I had more pure fun playing TotK and would call it the better game. I love them both though.
My issue with TotK is it was fun until one day it suddenly wasn't. I explored pretty much the whole map but never finished the main story
Oh man at least jump in and beat the final boss. The ending is amazing and extremely satisfying.
Idk about that, it's very very hard to compare the two and to which is better. Objectively, they're both amazing games and very high quality. Think from there, what determines what's better is what your preference is. I like them both for different reasons and can just tell you I'm immersed and having tons of fun with both.
If I want to play a Zelda game, BG3 sucks. If I want to play a Baldur's Gate game, TotK sucks.
Counterpoint: TotK is running on a 7 year old phone, the fact that it works at all is remarkable
Seriously. The Switch is a piece of shit and it looks beautiful and plays well and has so much depth and complexity. Sure, it doesn't have raytracing, but have you seen those sunsets?
I thought TOTK was great, but it's not like it was good enough to compare good games against. Like, it's just BOTW with a new story and some QOL fixes. It's essentially a $70 standalone DLC. I could probably list a few games that came out this year that I liked better.
You obviously have not played TotK. It is not a dlc in anyway. I don't know what DLCs you've been playing.
You're basically saying that A link to the past is a dlc with QoL changes to The Legend of Zelda on NES.
What you are saying that I'm saying is not what I'm saying at all. A Link to the Past has a new map, new items, new graphics, all new enemies, movement felt different etc. Everything about it was completely different from the original except the formula.
TotK has the same items that you have to get again for some reason. It has the same map, which means you have to tread the same ground again, it's the exact same graphics, except more dropped frames. You have to find a bunch of shrines again to get health and stamina upgrades just like the first game. You have to find Koroks (many in the same exact locations they were in the first game!) again to get inventory upgrades.
It's the same game with a new story and QOL fixes. I stand by that. I loved the QOL fixes. They fixed everything I had to complain about with BotW. I just wish I didn't just play BotW right before TotK, because I felt like I was just doing more of the same things over again, and that was extremely boring. I had to go to the same stables again in the same places. I had to go through the forest in the same place again. I had to go to the castle again. I had to do a dungeon near each of the 4 species settlements again (in the exact same places as before). I had to do a long side quest to own a house to be able to safely store items again.
TotK is what BotW should have been from the start.
Breath of the wild had two maps. The world, and the shrines.
Tears of the kingdom has four maps. The sky. The over world. Caves. And the depths. Not to mention the temples that replaced the four beasts are much larger than those beasts. They went back to OoT size temples.
The over world is very much different than it was in BotW. The number of quests is vastly more than in BotW.
Yeah you get heart containers again. Just like in every single Zelda game ever made.
The graphics, lighting, and especially the physics are improved a huge amount from BotW. (Although strangely the rain effect is worse). Like those are the things every game dev have been drooling over since it was released. And it runs at a smoother consistent frame rate than the previous game as well.
Sure you could argue BotW should have been TotK. You could also argue Super Mario Bros 3 should have been Super Mario World.
Gonna have to agree to disagree here. There just wasn't enough different for me to enjoy it as a whole new game. It was just too similar, and playing them back to back detracted from how much fun I had rather than adding to it.
Though I want to be clear about one complaint I had. I wasn't annoyed by getting heart containers again. As you pointed out, that's in every game. I was annoyed that I had to do shrines again. The reward could have been anything from the shrines, and I would have been annoyed. Shrines were the worst thing of any Zelda game imo, and they brought it back essentially unchanged from BotW. The fact that the reward was exactly the same as the previous game was just extra annoying.
Edit: btw, I really don't like that you keep putting words in my mouth. I'm not even talking about Mario games. This has nothing to do with them. The complaints I have about the similarities between these two games do not apply to those games.
I'll agree to disagree. But I think you're really missing everything special in the game. It's a pure sequel, and that something we've never had in the series. It literally quadruples every aspect of BotW.
Edit. I never put words in your mouth. I'm not sorry you can't understand how some things can be like other things. You not being able to grasp relations between concepts in a conversation pretty much makes you being unable to grasp the concepts and improvements between these games moot.
So idk, learn to think more. It's pretty stupid you got insulted somehow by comparing games.
The point is Nintendo fans start to look like fifa fans. So, besides content blocking, Nintendo is trying to one up EA in the scummy department. Why isn't totk a dlc? Why did it take 6 years then? They had the same thing with majoras mask but that took just one year wtf. This sounds insane and the cherry on top is that people think it's the best game of the year. Gaming is doomed, there is no more demand for quality+inovation. Everyone big in the industry is playing it super safe and instead of being humble for not taking riscs they act like dicks. Which is mirrored in the fans tribalistic defense of the games. Totk is bad from a philosoficaly stand point and you can't stop people from comparing the game with what it could of been! Better availability, better story as a sequel, real inovation rather than ticktock gimics and so many more things. It's sad that its game of the year material due to lack of competition.
I really don't understand the "$70 DLC" comments. Maybe I'm too old, but TotK is the perfect example of what a sequel is.
Maybe expansion is a better term than DLC.
It's a new story inside the same game. Same map, same gameplay loop (find shrines, find Koroks, do side quests). I can't think of another sequel where the entire game takes place in the same map. Majora's Mask was a sequel with mostly re-used assets, but it got a new map.
The games that do share a map, like Spider-man and Spider-Man: Miles Morales, are largely considered stand-alone expansions.
Additional areas aren't enough to call it not an expansion. Plenty of expansions have more maps in addition to the existing maps. Think TW3: Blood and Wine. Some of it takes place in the old areas, some of it takes place in new areas. It's still an expansion.
Halo 3: ODST took place solely in a new map. You even play as a new character with an entirely new story with all new characters. It was still a standalone expansion. That was more of a different game than TotK was from BotW.
But I feel like we're both focusing on the map too much, but that's not even the main thing that I disliked. That barely even scratches the surface of the issues I had with the game. And to be honest, I don't find anything inherently wrong with the map. It was the map being largely the same on top of the other things that didn't change that irked me.
Things I didn't like about TotK:
I'm focusing a lot on the negative here, which makes it seem like I didn't like the game, but I thought it was great. I just thought having both BotW and TotK be so similar took away from how good TotK was, because you do the same things in both games. I wish they would have tweaked more. Just having no shrines and no Koroks and replacing those mechanics with a different way to get hearts, stamina, and inventory space would have made the game 1000x better. Not having the same outfits again would have made the game much better as well.
If they came out with another game in the BotW/TotK series, I would skip it. I'm just not interested in finding shrines for a third time. I miss pre-BotW Zelda games.
Yeah, TOTK is too similar to BOTW structural wise, it's very easy to get bored of the grind and just do sandbox thing once in a while.(and that's with dup glitch in mind, without dupe those crafty machines won't see the day since the time required to get enough zonites to do the auto build.) I basically haven't even finish the 4 spirits yet (got 3) and decides to play BG3 instead, and that's a good choice, so much more brain engaging in this game as well.(and that's even with save scumming, mostly to see what other paths of conversation go.) The battle is pretty balanced if you turn off karmic dice.(on balanced difficulty.) I only restart battle when I misclick and attacked on my own party.
I haven't even played BG3 yet, but I wouldn't fault anyone for saying this. I lost a month and a half to TOTK and enjoyed every second. It fixed every gripe I had about BOTW, but that's kind of the problem as well. I always felt like BOTW was a glorified tech demo, and after playing TOTK, it felt more like the game BOTW should have been.
TOTK also has its own issues, especially with the story. The story just being told to you and not being something you're really experiencing was a weird choice. I was hoping for Ganondorf's involvement to be more than "it was me Link!" leading up to the final confrontation.
The final boss fight was an insanely awesome sequence though. Easily my favorite part of the game.
I agree with not really being a part of the story. You do play a part a little more in Totk, but it's still mostly watching cutscenes from the past again. Such a weird narrative to stick to.
Also, did you know that was the imprisoning war?
Baldur's Gate 3 is the living proof that - at least as far as RPGs are concerned - absolutely nothing happened in the last fifteen to twenty years of gaming. Make one good AAA RPG and people lose their minds over it. I mean it certainly is better than the slob Bethesda served up in the last two decades.
If only it came to Xbox :(
I could play on my Deck, but I want to play this one co-op. We still have the Divinity games, which D:OS2 is apparently very similar, but I wanna try this!
If you can connect your Xbox controller to your Deck, you can still play it in Coop, just ignore the gaphics and you're good to go
Im doing thus all the time with my Manjaro Laptop all the time
It'll be coming sometime next year. Making splitscreen work on the Series S is holding up development.
It is one the best games in its respective genre. I only play RPGs and this game has easily toppled Witcher, Elder Scrolls, and other games like Pillars of Eternity and so on.
It’s not your type of game, it seems. Not that it isn’t one of the best RPGs in it's class.
It is definitely my type of game. Crpgs are my jam, this doesnt mean ill blindly praise it as the best rpg ever and it doesnt mean i wont criticize it. The interface really sucks. The tooltips and info on skills and classes are lacking. The decision to move away from real time with pause and small party size changes the identity of a bg game. It is better than many games and i agree it is better than pillars but it is far from the best rpg ever made is all i am saying.
I can't really comment on your other points because I haven't played any of those other games you mentioned, but this point stuck out to me:
The tooltips and info on skills and classes are lacking.
I'm honestly baffled by this. All of the tooltips and in-game documentation have been immensely helpful to me, as someone who's pretty new to DnD and has never really played this type of game before. Being able to drill down into the tooltips is incredible, since everything is always a few hovers away, even the most basic beginner concepts. I don't have to go digging through some in game manual to find stuff that was introduced at the beginning of the game, I just have to hover over a couple things and it's right there.
I replied to soemone above with some criticisms of the tooltips. I am jist copying and pasting caise i am lazy and typing on a phone sucks. I think a lot of the information is vague. Take fear for instance, fear says it makes people fearful and that they will be easier to hit. How much easier to hit? Advantage? +1? If you check the linked description of fearful, it doesnt mention anything about being easier to hit. Other issues, spell descriptions dont provide aoe info, some dont even say whether or not they are aoe like acid splash. Other examples, chromatic orb doesnt tell you how much damage other types will deal, and If spells have surface effects, the effects are not linked or explained. Haste doesnt tell you how long the lethargic debuff will last. Cc spells dont say if enemies get a save each turn or not. Like this isnt just a few spells this is numerous spells and skills from many different classes. I jist think in a tactical turn based rpg, the info should always be clear.
I just think it is ridiculous that i cant make valid criticisms of a game i really like without getting downvoted. Like am i nitpicking? In some areas yes, but thats how you separate great games from masterpieces.
I agree with you on some of your points. The interface (with a controller) is only ever annoying as all hell when I’m trying to look for an item that a puzzle needs. I have a strong character with buffs to carry more weight and after awhile the plethora of items in my inventory are just overwhelming. That’s my fault for being a hoarder, not the game per se. lol The same happened in the Witcher, and can happen in games like Oblivion/Skyrim. I guess what constitutes an amazing RPG game to me is that it respects my choices whether good or bad, makes me face the consequences good or bad, let’s me play the way I want to unless absolutely necessary to keep me in line with what needs to be done to progress, and to let my imagination run wild while letting me experiment with different ideas or plans. I guess with all that said, I take RPG games pretty seriously as in I will legitimately place myself into the game both visually (if I can with the tools provided) and especially morally. “What would I really do in this situation?” Type of player.
The decision to move away from real time with pause and small party size changes the identity of a bg game
You could've just led with that so we know which vocal minority you're coming from. I'm sure if it was RTWP with the exact same interface and tooltips, you'd be praising the game.
The interface needs a lot of quality of life improvements. Some issues include no toggle to disable the annoying dice roll mechanic, the autotalk on click when clicking on companions, and the game just seems to eat inputs all the time. The lack of options to change the ui size sucks too. One of my biggest issues is the limited inventory management, like inaccessible inventory of all companions at once (including non party companions), no quick stack, and when you sort inventory it wont stack the items of the same type either. I just feel with the amount of testing done, these are things that should have been apparent. Imean there are some things the interface does well, like how easy it is to customize and access skills and spells. Again i like this game. I still give it an A, but its not the best rpg ever.
Also, i think dismissing me completely because i like rtwp and larger parties is pretty lame. Baldurs gate invented the real time with pause system afaik and it was core to its identity and the way the game played out tactically. It really brought something to the tabletop genre by allowing all turns to play out at the same time which made it more immersive imo. Also, i feel like they spent so much time writing and voicing these characters that it is an error how they limit your interaction with them with small parties, and honestly few companion choices overall. This game just feels like dragonage/divinity which is fine, i liked both of those games, but it doesnt feel as much like bg as i would like.
Edit: forgot a line aboutui size and to add a bit about tooltips and info. I think a lot of the information is vague. Take fear for instance, fear says it makes people fearful and that they will be easier to hit. How much easier to hit? Advantage? +1? The description of fearful doesnt mention anything about being easier to hit. Other issues, spell descriptions dont provide aoe info, some dont even say whether or not they are aoe like acid splash. Other examples, chromatic orb doesnt tell you how much damage other types will deal, and If spells have surface effects, the effects are not linked or explained. Haste doesnt tell you how long the lethargic debuff will last. Cc spells dont say if enemies get a save each turn or not. Like this isnt just a few spells this is numerous spells and skills from many different classes. I jist think in a tactical turn based rpg, the info should always be clear.
Thank you. Good to know I'm not alone in this, I literally don't understand why this game is praised so much, it seems like it barely works, seems weird as hell, I don't understand the replayability and the gameplay is just.... Clicking menus?