Hmm I should define "good" to be consistant? That's fair. My definition of good is a hypothesis that based on a contextual setting with the malleable point"can it work" can be tested. It's loose. You are correct on this. I promote real time testing because of this in fact. The meaning comes from the testing in real time not the past results. In order to develop a creative break through you have to do things yourself. Using templates is fine, but they never define what you do. To discover something you must be open to the fact that nothing is concrete. You cannot do that if the data is thrown out before at least the screening phase of testing because the source is something you don't like or worse something that is beneath you. Which is exactly what most ego's demand. I prefer a more humble hands on approach to prevent loss of creativity and stop lazy "he said she said" arguments that always pop up when reliance on old data takes precedence over live data testing. Things are easier now so it's easy to swing past little things, but those little things could be what makes the difference. This of course is strictly for the discussion of Baldurs gate 3.
So as you already know this cannot happen which by default means the limit is post your point. Its all Larian after that.
No, I mean that the definition of a 'good point' is tied to the context from which it was created from. For example, if we agree that Larian's surfaces are too much and say it is a good point then it should be understood that we, of a certain demographic, hold this as a truth. But if you were to apply that point to someone else who enjoys surfaces then it would be blatantly false.
Also, I mean to say that testing can be done in a myriad of ways including hypotheticals, synthetics, real-time, thought experiments or whatever else but the conclusions you derive from that need to be carefully measured if you want actual applicable results.
That being said though, the things that are available to this forum can easily chop down most arguments without Larian because while they're related to BG3 they are first and foremost going to be butchered down by logic before even reaching the point where you need to 'test' with Larian's data set or context.
