Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.
Edit: I've even forwarded some criticism of my own that was brought up to Swen at some point, where I quote myself from private conversations:
Quote
[...] ...criticism for Swen is that I think he should stop referring to acts in any measure in how he did with Dos2, because it just confuses players. Saying it has three acts (just like Dos2 had in his words) makes people think act 1 is 1/3 of the game, which in the definition of how he uses those terms, doesn't equate in reality at all. Call it acts, but not in the whole "beginning, middle and an end" thing because players view each section of the game as an act, not how it's narratively segmented
Context here is Larian internally refers to acts as three-fold. DOS2 had three acts according to Swen: Fort Joy > Reaper's Coast + Nameless Isle > Arx. The rest of us would say Act 1 is Fort Joy, Act 2 is Reaper's Coast, Act 3 is Nameless Isle, Act 4 is ARX. That has seemed to be a trend for BG3 too which I believe is not speaking the language of the audience. So a lot of people think of EA as one third of the full game, because Act 1 out of 3 acts in the language they know from earlier games.
So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.
