Like has been stated a billion times already, Baldur's Gate 3 has been positively received overall, it IS a small minority of people complaining about it not being '' DnD enough ''.
I am sorry, but DnD is niche.
Completely wrong.
D&D is the most popular TT game ever. It is not a niche hobby.
Starfinder is a niche hobby, but D&D and Magic aren't.
Most negative reviews on steam mentions hp bloat and did you heard about sword coast legends? SCL abandoned even more the D&D rules. It has cooldowns instead of Vancian magic, it had dozens of times more hp bloat than BG3 and was hated with passion by the fans.
Diablo 3 is not a bad game, it just objectively isn't on a production value none of Blizzards games are ( minus Warcraft 3 Reforged which was outsourced ).
Not a bad game?
Imagine if was.
All spells scaling with the size and sharpness of your axe
Itemization being 100% stat stickie
Cartoonish wow artstyle
Cooldowns to do everything
Everyone is a clone
The necromancer male model is so androginous that I was wondering If i was playing an JRPG
Carnavalesque armor design
Ponny Rainbow levels
(...)
Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.
Another thing too, the points against Diablo 3 are mostly totally superficial.
I mean the rainbow level is literally supposed to be a meme, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about it.
There are things I don't like about Diablo 3 too and I think are very valid criticisms like the itemization and most would agree on that.
Like I mentioned I grew up playing Diablo 1 and 2 and I actually enjoyed the art direction a lot, Torchlight 1 and 2 were made by old Diablo devs too and were successful and well-received too by Diablo fans.
You don't get to gatekeep who is a fan and who isn't.
The reason why game journalists reviewed Diablo 3 positively is because it's a good game, whether it's the sequel people wanted or expected to Diablo 2 is another matter entirely.
They didn't review it as a sequel to Diablo 2, they reviewed it as a game standing on its own two legs.
Which is kinda the point and their job, they're not supposed to be fanboys they're supposed to review things for the average joe.
Which again, is why games like MK11 gets glowing and quite uncritical reviews.
I also find the notion that they're somehow biased in favor of things like cartoony graphics to be ridiculous, if anything it's the exact opposite and game journalists tend to be more drawn to and value photorealism a lot more.
'' Realistic '' graphics would've been the safe option.
Most people don't sit around obsessing about their insecurity over men not looking manly enough or anything like that either.
I have A LOT of problems with mainstream game journalism, but at least I understand what their actual job is.
They don't always live up to it, I think that there is a ton of negative bias against Japanese games or sexualized content in particular from game journalists. There are definitely times where they have severe issues separating their more personal opinions from reviewing the actual game from a more neutral pov.
But generally speaking they're reviewing things from the pov of an average joe with no previous investement because that's what most people are.
And it's going to be very hit and miss with how that lines up with the reception.
In regards to the TT thing I think that Robert answered that well.
A lot of people know about DnD and games like Warhammer but very few people actually play.
Altho I'd add that while most people have probably played football at one point, very few people who watch football are actually fans of playing it themselves.
It's kinda the same with TT too and things like Critical Role, a lot of people might enjoy watching Critical Role but very few of those people will actually enjoy playing it.
Even E-sports actually has a lot of this, a lot of people watch certain E-sports games but don't like playing them.
It's important to separate interest in something from actual direct engagement with it.
