This cracked me up, ngl. If people want changes, they're a stupid minority who's stupid and Larian will never listen. If people get chances, they're entitled snowflakes whom poor Larian had to give icecream to. Damned either way, i guess. People, obv. Not Larian.
Your example also leads to combat or cutscene death on failure, btw, no matter how many words are used to describe it. Should have rather gone with the Priestess Gut situation.
Nice try portraying me as some Larian fanboi for attempting in vain to inject nuance to the clearly extremely negative bias some people, yourself included. I argued rather lengthily for my stance. You are free to disregard it, but unless you manage to explain why CODING is the issue as is claimed here, or why D&D rules or the implementation thereof (the ONE aspect the community is actually in full agreement wanting more of) should be change, then you're just another voice howling at the moon, aren't you?
You abusing the illithid example in support of portraying RNG as an "unbearable tyranny" (in particularly in BG3) shows your own extreme bias. By mentioning the risk of dying even behind so many contingencies as a negative RNG outcome, you in actuality manage to argue that there should be NO RISK OF EVER FAILING IN ANY GAME. Screw any suspense in combat! What planet are you from, and how hard did you hit your head on impact with planet Earth? This literally proves/validates what I said about unrealistic expectations, intolerance for the imperfect, and being an entitled snowflake. Thanks for involuntarily arguing my case and the comedy gold.
Hey Seraphael, thanks for speaking up.
What I wrote here was a synopsis of the stream, not a debate thesis. Nothing I said was incorrect; it was just a relation of what was said and the topics on which those things touched. If anything that I said was incorrect, I'll be more than happy to fix the synopsis, however, in this particular case, I do not believe that anything I said was incorrect.
Hey Niara, thanks for being gracious. It's a deficit with all the rampant negativity on the boards right now, and the contrarian in me made me embrace the role of devil's advocate. I do agree with some other points you made though.
A synopsis is far as I know (I'm not a native English-speaker) a brief summary, and a summary should not include the author's opinion or argumentative strategy. It was the latter part I objected to. If you subscribe to the idea that opinions cannot possibly be incorrect because opinions are your own and infallible in their subjectivity, you are correct. However, I disagree with your spin on what Larian said, and I found your failure to acknowledge the many efforts Larian has actually done to address the issue as so severely lacking in perspective as to be almost fraudulent.
