It's hard to address every single point so I'll go in order but be skipping some of the less important ones. So firstly, no one is making me play this game, no. And the D&D-ness of it isn't honestly my biggest issue with the game. It's mainly an issue for me in that I can see how much it's upsetting some people and I agree with some of the ideas that people have put forward that align more with tabletop D&D. I don't expect to enjoy this game as much as I hoped when I first opted into EA, but I think it'll be a good enough time by the time the whole game is finished.
As for the question, what have I done to qualify to tell them how to make a successful game? I bought the Early Access that they put out explicitly asking for player feedback on. They have their own vision and that vision should guide them, but they asked for people to give feedback and that's what's going to happen. If I take issue with stuff they're doing, I'm going to say so, because they literally asked for people to do that. My vision for a good RPG clearly differs from theirs, so I do my best to try and limit my comments to places where I think they're failing to achieve what it seems like they want to achieve, rather than just harping on about what I dislike. Do I fail to keep myself in check on that account? Certainly, but I still try.
With the Superman stories you laid out, you gave some excellent examples of evil Superman stories. Though Brightburn is actually an example of my point, that's NOT Superman, it's a whole new character that is just incredibly similar to Superman. But I agree, that sort of thing isn't inherently a recipe for disaster, and in fact bold new takes on characters are, in my opinion, important for keeping age-old characters fresh. But I will also present to you the Electric Blue Superman era, where Superman had a massive overhaul in powers and costume and it's still derided as a terrible era in his history. Superman at Earth's End, another notorious comic series that messes up Superman terribly. And All-Star Batman and Robin, where Batman is presented as an absolute maniac and mildly fascistic, which hardly anyone liked. And for a more recent example, Booster Gold in Heroes in Crisis and the 3 issue storyline "The Gift" in Tom King's Batman run. That character bore barely a cursory resemblance to the actual character of Booster Gold, and acted the way he did simply because the story needed to happen. Again, there's a difference between exploring new ideas with a character or IP, and using said character or IP as a vehicle to get across whatever story you actually want to tell.
This wasn't in response to a point I made but I'll adress it all the same. Your second example isn't a translation problem. It's simply that you don't like how a thing works. That's like saying "I know exactly how this word is meant to translate from French to English, but I don't like that translation." That isn't a problem with the translation, that's a problem with the translator. If the only question is whether the translator likes it or not, then it's not the mechanic translating well or not. LArian is under no obligation to translate things perfectly when they can, but I would think that when you're dealing with something that's already beloved by a lot of people, you'd err on the side of not changing things that don't need changing. Because just because you don't personally like something, that doesn't mean the thing you do like is actually better. I didn't like D:OS2, but I can acknowledge that the game is good and had plenty of good ideas. The changes I would make to that game would make it better for me personally, but wouldn't necessarily make it a better game.
