The deeper and more complicated you want your game to be, the more bugs you're going to get. There's no two ways about it. A game with more linear story progression, fewer branches along the way, more straight forward mechanics, are expected to have fewer bugs and such. The devs can be creative and ambitious, but they're still people. There will be bugs, there will be oversights. Personally, I appreciate the fact that they try.
Take Skyrim for example. What about the amount of bugs and crazy and bizarre stuff that happen in that game? And what kind of budget was it built on? Did it work? We could say "but it's TES game", so why can't we say "but it's a D:OS game"? My point is, whether it "works" or not is tied to the nature of the game, and will be proved by time. Whether we think it works or not personally doesn't really matter.
And the fact that the game received high praises despite it being a "broken, half made" game proves there is something special about it. That is a pretty neat feat Larian were able to pull off, if you ask me. To be fair, a lot of the "problems" come from combat mechanics and only really show up when you dig deep and go all hardcore tactical about it and start looking at all the numbers and equations. On a more basic level, and on standard difficulty, the game does a solid job.
Last edited by Try2Handing; 04/01/18 10:20 PM.
