“Game not as good as BG3 because it has no multiplayer. Game is a joke because all single player games must be compared to TW3, and thus will always fail. Therefore, BG3 wins! “
Methinks your math is flawed.
I for one am extremely happy to have a diversity of video games that are not cookie-cutter copies of each other.
Your opinion not mine. Well of course everyone has right to their own opinion. Well and regarding BG3 full review is a bit difficult before full release and that is not any time soon. While Pathfinder 2 pathetic as single player compared to single player Witcher 3 will be released already in September 2021. OP made some impression though of not good things in BG3 that certainly is not the case in Witcher 3. Lets not discuss those things. However Witcher 3 has righly so for many reasons 18 years age rating and still manage to sell over 35 million. If nothing else then on content regarding age rating over 35 million buyers disagreed with SerraSerra in that specific regard at least of allowed content in games and age rating. If Witcher 3 would do as SerraSerra want its age rating would be to my guess roughly 12 or 13 and not 18.
Your argument here is really weird. Who was even talking about age ratings and adult content? Why are you bringing this up now because no one has mentioned that for several pages at least. Also, I think comparing WotR with Witcher 3 is not really a good comparison since they're two different types of game. That's like comparing Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 with Stardew Valley because they both have multiplayer and fantasy elements. They're both trying to evoke different sorts of experience. And calling WotR pathetic compared to Witcher 3 is also just wrong. Again, they're different kinds of games doing different things. If you want to talk about how well they accomplish the different things they set out to do, great, that's an interesting discussion. But it doesn't seem to be the discussion you're trying to have here.
Regarding graphics (another thing that no one was talking about before), firstly, the level of graphics don't matter nearly as much as a game's art direction and art style. In that vein, comparing Witcher 3 with WotR or Solasta is ridiculous because they're going for very different art direction. If anything, you should be comparing those aspects with BG3 since it also seems to be aiming for the high fidelity route Witcher 3 went for. Again, if you want to argue that one achieves its art direction goals better than the other, that's a valid discussion to have, but neither Solasta or WotR are even trying for the same level of fidelity Witcher 3 went for, so comparing them based on raw graphical power is a pointless excercise. Secondly comparing Witcher 3 to Solasta at all is a pointless excercise. That's not even opinion, that's actually a fact. You're comparing the third game in a successful AAA franchise made by an already successful and experienced team to the first attempt of a brand new studio. That's like comparing the latest Tarantino film to a film school project. They're working on such different scales that there's almost nothing to be gained by comparing the two.
