Community RPG Codex GOTY 2023: Results & Cool Graphs

[Axioms]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 1 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

In what way are BG1/2 better than BG3? I mean aside from totally subjective "vibes" reasons.

I guess some people prefer 2E or to 5E or something? To me they both suck but I guess some people care.

 

[Lord of Riva]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

In what way are BG1/2 better than BG3? I mean aside from totally subjective "vibes" reasons.

Better atmosphere, more complex combat, more complex general system, better story, better C&C, better class system, better loot, better sidecontent..............

 

[HumanMech]

In what way are BG1/2 better than BG3? I mean aside from totally subjective "vibes" reasons.

Balduran and Sarevok are not vibing as flamboyantly in BG1/2 as in BG3. So BG3 is better even in terms of "vibes".

 

[Roguey]

more complex combat,

better C&C,

 

[janior]

more complex combat

 

[ArchAngel]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

In what way are BG1/2 better than BG3? I mean aside from totally subjective "vibes" reasons.

Better atmosphere, more complex combat, more complex general system, better story, better C&C, better class system, better loot, better sidecontent..............

Better story and exploration would be for me two most important aspects. Also no bear buggery or any kind of Bear except murder bears that that one shot you when you first meet them.

BG3 is just combination of DAO and DOS2 and neither of those games were ever close to BG1/BG2 and their mix is neither.

 

[ArchAngel]

more complex combat,

better C&C,

I can agree about BG1/2 not having as much C&C as modern games but more complex combat can be argued from some points. Especially when BG3 combat is super easy so basically non existent. In BG1/2 even when having some levels and better gear you are always one bad roll from losing your characters.

 

[Irxy]

Do you only participate in BG3 threads? 35 alerts is pretty low.

Also politics.
I reserve at least half of my poop reactions budget for swen.

 

[Lord_Potato]

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

At least the Codex really loved this one!

 

[Bester]

more complex combat,

better C&C,

I played "BG" 3 for a bit, and whenever there was a promise of a serious C&C, it turned out to be a charade. As soon as you pull the curtain, there's nothing behind.
For instance, when you meet the little person in your head, she says "you can kill me" and bows her head. You can click "kill her" and then of course the plot shield stops you, and she says "ah, I expected you to be more merciful" (designer's words in her mouth).
Or you can go along with the Gith Queen's quest, but in the end her acolytes attack you anyway. There's no way to actually let her have the device. Shit, even in "Fallout" 3 you could explode the nuke and in Wasteland 3 you could nuke your own base causing an early credits roll.

The question of whether or not to fuck this or that part of the harem hardly seems the definition of C&C.
You can become more or less illithid, but does it alter the story? I don't think anyone even remarked on my MC's appearance when he started looking like Yushchenko.
Are there actual gates in this game? Like can you actually remove the illithid from your head using that gith machine, rolling perfect 20 on all of them? Yes or no?

I'm sure fanboys can produce countless examples of "you can kill that NPC or not kill, you can aid that village or not aid them", but that's just the first letter in C&C, not the second.
Another example that comes to mind. I had completely missed Jaheira's base in chapter 2. She and her harpers came to fight the bad guy just at the right time anyway. Uh huh.

 

[Irxy]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 1 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

You gave it a 2, I gave it a 5 - yet you call me a hater? Lol.
Anyway, there are multiple hundred pages longs threads on this, no reason to turn this one into a BG3 discussion.
I'll briefly give my reasons, which are obviously subjective:
The good: graphics, cutscenes, animations, voice acting.
Fine: combat & various rpg systems, though I do not like D&D5 very much. Exploration is decent.
Not good: plot is nonsensical cringe, party characters are edgy clowns, worldbuilding is shit (partly to blame on the D&D5 iteration of FR, but only partly), pacing is very uneven, music is mediocre, a couple of good side stories don't lead anywhere, takes 100 hours to get to a city and it's meh, woke shit, c&c is lacking, overall feels unfinished and unpolished.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

The good: graphics, cutscenes, animations, voice acting.

This right here says all you need to know about these people. Despite all the negatives listed (the things that matter), these four things brought the score up to 5 for this casual clown

 

[Bester]

music is mediocre

So so very true. I can play many BG2 tunes in my head. I can't recall a single note of BG3's music.
Even Dragon Age has imprinted music in my head. Even Mass Effect 2 had a sexy & catchy club music. BG3 didn't have a single track.

 

[HumanMech]

I gave it a 5

Not good: plot is nonsensical cringe, party characters are edgy clowns, worldbuilding is shit (partly to blame on the D&D5 iteration of FR, but only partly), pacing is very uneven, music is mediocre, a couple of good side stories don't lead anywhere, takes 100 hours to get to a city and it's meh, woke shit, c&c is lacking, overall feels unfinished and unpolished.

 

[Axioms]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 1 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

You gave it a 2, I gave it a 5 - yet you call me a hater? Lol.
Anyway, there are multiple hundred pages longs threads on this, no reason to turn this one into a BG3 discussion.
I'll briefly give my reasons, which are obviously subjective:
The good: graphics, cutscenes, animations, voice acting.
Fine: combat & various rpg systems, though I do not like D&D5 very much. Exploration is decent.
Not good: plot is nonsensical cringe, party characters are edgy clowns, worldbuilding is shit (partly to blame on the D&D5 iteration of FR, but only partly), pacing is very uneven, music is mediocre, a couple of good side stories don't lead anywhere, takes 100 hours to get to a city and it's meh, woke shit, c&c is lacking, overall feels unfinished and unpolished.

I guess in the end to me both games are 2-3/5, maybe 4/5 if I *really* focus on their subjective goals as games and designer intentions.

I guess barely compares to the original games is a tone/vibes argument?

I agree about the characters/characterization but I just set that under "vibes" complaints.

Maybe my own problem is vibes related. All DnD systems just blend together as middling trash only fit for tabletop. When they have to stand alone without a strong DM as they do in singleplayer RPGs they are all exposed as trash.

 

[Irxy]

I gave it a 5

Not good: plot is nonsensical cringe, party characters are edgy clowns, worldbuilding is shit (partly to blame on the D&D5 iteration of FR, but only partly), pacing is very uneven, music is mediocre, a couple of good side stories don't lead anywhere, takes 100 hours to get to a city and it's meh, woke shit, c&c is lacking, overall feels unfinished and unpolished.

You missed the "Fine" part, combat & exploration, basically core gameplay. Yes, decent gameplay is often enough to make a game enjoyable.
Also, beggers can't be choosers. I don't rate modern games in comparison to cult classics, but to other games of the genre in the past 2-3 years.
Otherwise no game would get more than 3/5, which is boring and depressive.

 

[ga♥]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 1 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

If you tried to play BG1/2 you would know without making these stupid statements.

 

[Harthwain]

Normies shitting on D4 and Starfield means normies are becoming more like Codex.

Or some series become so dumb at this point that even their own fans dislike them. It is the sign of intensifying decline more than anything else. Because as bad as some Codexers may be, the normies have way lower standards to be satisfied with their games. And if you fail to meet even these lower standards...

 

[HumanMech]

You missed the "Fine" part, combat & exploration, basically core gameplay. Yes, decent gameplay is often enough to make a game enjoyable.
Also, beggers can't be choosers. I don't rate modern games in comparison to cult classics, but to other games of the genre in the past 2-3 years.
Otherwise no game would get more than 3/5, which is boring and depressive.

So "decent, mediocre and full of shit" is enough to give it a 5/5.

Or may be bear fucking and shit eating with "good" graphics, animations and voice acting are that much more valuable and important, when you rate a cRPG.

The good: graphics, cutscenes, animations, voice acting.

 

[Tyranicon]

Normies shitting on D4 and Starfield means normies are becoming more like Codex.

Or some series become so dumb at this point that even their own fans dislike them. It is the sign of intensifying decline more than anything else. Bercause as bad as some Codexers may be, the normies have way lower standards to be satisfied with their games. And if you fail to meet even these lower standards...

It's even worse for Starfield since it's the first "flagship" Bethesda title since FO4 almost a decade ago. I mean, Diablo 3 came out even longer ago, but it was even hotter garbage.

My dreams for zero G sex mods are dead.

 

[Lord of Riva]

more complex combat,

better C&C,

The few choices there are, are more relevant including choosing your class.

The combat is vastly more complex, the Spell list and mechanics of wizards alone are more complex than BG3. It's all summarily a downgrade.

 

[Shin]

What? Fallout 3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take Fallout 3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this.

 

[ArchAngel]

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

At least the Codex really loved this one!

We sure did. We even did 7 reviews for PoE1 :D

 

[gogis]

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 1 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

While the contarian result is funny, anyone who would give BG3 a 5 is absolutely unserious. I have a nice list of posters whose opinions on games I can just outright ignore.

I gave it a 5, though I had a 5/10 scale in mind.
It certainly wouldn't make anywhere near the top 10 of all time, and barely compares to the original games.
Still, it is the best you can expect nowadays, at least among the AAA RPGs. Since there are barely any, and none even try to be a real RPG.

What? BG3 is not comparable to 1 and 2? How? That's just stupid. Hard to take BG3 haters seriously when they say dumb shit like this. Though to be clear I rated it 2/5, was debating between 2 or 3 out of 5.

PoE1 is closer to BG1/2 than BG3.

In what way are BG1/2 better than BG3? I mean aside from totally subjective "vibes" reasons.

I guess some people prefer 2E or to 5E or something? To me they both suck but I guess some people care.

You serious? "vibes" makes or breaks games. When I've been watching BG3 streams I see "LARIAN" plastered all over screen. And no, it's not bear buggery and other SJW shit. No, no, no. I am outie.

 

[std::namespace]

"""people""" you need to add to your ignore list