It feels like too much of a coppout on the part of the devs. It's putting the onus on the players and saying that if players don't enjoy the game, it's their fault for not playing the right way, absolving the creators of responsibility.
I dont believe this ... especialy that part where player "is supposed to play the right way" ...
That sounds like direct contradiction to what im trying to say ...
When player try to "play the right way" he is "trying to play the way he presumes Devs wanted him to play" ...
Question is if there even is any "expected way to play" in the first place. O_o
What im trying to say is that player should not "play the right way" ... he should "play the way he is having fun and dont give and fuck about the right way" ...
And in that case, yes ... its totally players fault he is not having fun ... i know people dislike to hear it ... but who else is there to blame, if you can do EXACTLY what you want to ... but you dont do it bcs you dont NEED TO?
This kind of mindset fascinates me from psychological aspect more than game design ...
We demand to swim with our hands tied to our waist, since we presume it would be better ... but we refuse to try swim, while not using our hands, to find out what would it be like.
Do you know what will happen once our hands will be tied and we will be thrown in the water?
(Yes it is absurdly extreme example ... but it should help you understand.)
The thing about this argument that I don't get is that it assumes that games where those limitations aren't imposed don't exist. It assumes that the majority of games don't present an expected way to play, when they very clearly do. Good dames are designed around a core gameplay loop, a fundamental way to play that everything else is built off of. In a well-designed game, that gameplay loop is rewarding in and of itself, and other features are built to compliment that loop. For example, Mario. The core loop of every mainline mario game is moving across the screen and navigating platforms. Everything else added on is there to improve and compliment that loop, or to provide something to break up the loop so that the repetition doesn't make it boring. You can argue if that's the only way to make a good game, but that's the way most games are made, and it's a reliable one that produces countless great games. With most cprgs, the devs want you to play with the companions they provide. They might make it possible to play without those companions, but the overall experience is designed so that the maximum enjoyment will be found playing in the way they intend.
Even with your extreme, swimming with hands tied example, if you take the wider context into account then it becomes "we want our hands tied when we swim here because we know that it's fun and we enjoy it." We know exactly what will happen, because it happens in most other games of this genre. And the people who've been playing BG3 and asking for changes are essentially people saying "we don't like swimming with our hands untied. We want you to tie our hands because we know that works." Does that take something away from the people who like having untied hands? Yes. But then it becomes a matter of Larian deciding who they want to cater to. But the request itself is entirely logical and reasonable and the people who want it are entirely reasonable. Arguing that it's a bad choice in and of itself is a poor argument because we have clear proof that it's perfectly good in and of itself. Is it prefect? No, nothing's perfect. Is it better than the approach you feel Larian is taking? I don't know, but one could argue that it is because it's had ages of refinement and polishing that Larian's theoretical approach hasn't had, but maybe once Larian's approach has had the time and care put in, it will be equal or even superior.
As for the question of who is to blame. It comes down to this; if this is how Larian wants the game to work and this sort of "create your own limits" approach is their vision, then yes, it's the fault of the players for not meeting the game on its own terms. But in that case, setting your own limits IS the right way to play, and thus if you don't do so, you're playing it wrong. But if this isn't Larian's intention, then it's absolutely Larian's fault because then it just means they made a poorly designed game.
And not only that, but I feel as though that isn't even what Larian is going for anyway.
Its certainly possible that curent mechanics are (or not) there just to gather data.
After all, they should have some measures about how often people rests, if they plan to include any limitations in the result.
But even that would be argument for "play the way you want to" ...
Since (quite logicaly i would dare to say) if nobody will clean whole surface of Act 1 with as little Long Rests as possible, how would Larian gather any data supporting that *this* is the way people wants to play it?
Quite the contrary, if we all will rest after every single combat (just bcs we want to) all Larian will see in their data is that litteraly MILLIONS of peope do exactly that.
My feeling there is, if that was their intent, they should have said that. They should have said "we're giving players a lot of space to explore and try things to see how they want to play and how to tune mechanics." Larian says they want to be our DM, well DMs TALK to their players, and when it comes to house rules, they need to be agreed on TOGETHER so that things work.
But short of that, especially since this is a still developing game, why should we think that's what they're going for when it's not an approach that is at all typical of game design? Why should we assume Larian is trying for some unique, avant garde approach
Bcs that is what we have, duh.
What other reason would be there to give players "to test" any other mechanic, than the one you are planning to use?
Because like you said above, they could just be there for data gathering purposes. They could also just be unfinished. Also, because it's a departure from the traditional approach of the genre, and because this game is being created within a genre, the reasonable action is to judge it based on the conventions of that genre. If they're trying to play with those conventions, then they should say so and allow us to properly adjust our expectations. I'm someone who firmly believes in openness and clarity in communication. Leaving stuff unsaid is a recipe for confusion. Even if it's supposedly obvious, it should be said. The level of dissatisfaction aparent in these forums makes it clear that it's actually NOT obvious.
