By skyforbes The disparity is stark. Gemini 2.5 Pro excelled at synthesizing specific, detailed user prompts into comprehensive, logically structured narratives that faithfully reflected the user's intent. It provided depth and nuance. In contrast, Gemini 3.0 systematically ignores instructions for detailed output. Even when explicitly prompted to be verbose, its responses are abruptly truncated, overly abstract, and lacking in substance. The model seems incapable of the deep, creative long-form writing that defined the previous version.
Furthermore, the stylistic quality of Gemini 3.0’s prose has deteriorated significantly. The writing is robotic, stiff, and often unnatural, making the content difficult to engage with. Whether this is an intentional design choice for safety or an unintended side effect of optimization is unclear, but the result is a user experience that feels functionally 'broken' for text-heavy tasks.
Consequently, I posit that Gemini 3.0 represents a significant downgrade in pure text generation performance. It is premature to blindly praise this model based solely on viral trends or multimodal demos without scrutinizing its core linguistic competency. Until Google addresses these severe limitations in creativity, output length, and natural phrasing, the consensus that 'Gemini 3.0 is superior' remains a superficial assessment that ignores the needs of power users who rely on high-quality text generation.