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.
Im honestly not sure i understand you right now ...
You get the feeling that i claim that there are no games with such limitations?
If so, not at all ... all i claim is that those games could make *some* people happier, IF they would loose their rules a bit.
Dont get me wrong, im not "against" limitations in general for both Fast Travel and Long Rests ... as long as they "make sense" (to me ofc).
For example i rarely Fast Travel in BG-3 from the spot ... simply bcs i dislike it ... i allways (or more like often, i get lazy since 10th play) walk to nearest Teleportation rune ... it seems more natural to me.
But since i do that im aware that all this adds to the game is walking ... sure, its immersive, it helps the atmosphere and *i* certainly like it ... but on the other hand im aware that many people would find it tedious, boring and anoying (and i dont blame them at all).
And so concidering both, i claim that curent situation is best from wider perspective ...
I get what i want, and im happy ...
They get what they want and they are happy ...
Sure, im aware that there are third group of people unhappy, bcs they demand system limitations for exactly the same outcome, but since making those people happy would mean making second group unhappy ... my opinion is quite clear:
If someone demand that developers should ignore wishes of certain group of people, in order to please another group ... that demanding group should be that one that will be ignored. Simple as that.
It assumes that the majority of games don't present an expected way to play, when they very clearly do.
Again, not at all ...
I never said this ... im very well aware that games presents expected way to play, i simply dont feel obligated to follow it, if that is not what i want to do.
Do i want to use Witcher III. as Horse Riding Simulator, instead of killing mosnters? Then i do ...
Do i want to use GTA as Need for Speed, instead of shooting and blowing things up? Then i do ...
Do i want to sit in the Stormwind and talk with my friends about their last raid, instead of participating in it? Then i do ...
And more sticking to the actual topic:
Do i want to turn BG-3 into Bomberman 3D and spend hours, and hours, and hours by placing smokepowder barrels ... and then blow them? Then i do ...
Do i want to turn my Wizard into Cloth wearing Cleric without a shield? Then i do ...
Do i want to push any and every enemy around the map until we reach some edge where i can instant kill them? Then i do ...
Do i want to travel the whole map on foot, and enjoy the scenery? Then i do ...
Do i want to fast travel from the middle of anywhere no matter the situations for no matter the reaons? Then i do ...
Do i want to Long Rest? No matter if i need to, or should to? Then i do ...
And if i do not ... then i dont, again no matter the circumstances.
I presume you get the idea.
As i said, i dont really care what i "should" do, as long as im having fun doing what i want to do ... and i see no reason why anyone, especialy other players, should told me.
What i honestly dont understand is why this even bother others ... its still single player game.
In a well-designed game, that gameplay loop is rewarding in and of itself, and other features are built to compliment that loop.
In my honest opinion ... BG-3 is a Good game allready, maybe even great one ...
And the reason i give it such credit is bcs there is so many possible ways to play it, so everyone CAN find their own style, if they at least try.
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.
Indeed ...
But you are right, i can ... and i do ... argue that is not the only way.
Especialy now, when there "faithfull adaptation of 5e" allready exists (
yup, talking about Solasta) ...
I cant speak for Swen obviously, but imagining myself on his chair ...
I would not want to release another game too simmilar to that either, especialy not so soon after ...
If they would manage to release BG-3
before Solasta, that would be different song entirely, they would still be "the first one who prooved that tabletop rules can be translated faithfully and still make great game" ... wich would sound as great achievment.
Right now, when the other one is allready out ... the best title they can hope for is "Solasta with better graphics" ... wich is obviously not as impressive, so their only option is to aim for different goal.
Even more ... once uppon a time someone come with new idea, something "revolutionary" you could say.
And those (if the idea was well executed and recedived, obviously) then can easily become "one of games that defined, or changed whole genre".
I bet you know some.
So i will not bother with examples.
the maximum enjoyment will be found playing in the way they intend.
Any enjoyment is matter of subjective taste.
"we want our hands tied when we swim here because we know that it's fun and we enjoy it."
I wish.
Oh that would be great ...
Sadly, you are wrong here since most people around here is more like:
"
We want everyone hands tied when we, or they, swim here because we know that it's fun and we enjoy it ... and therefore we demand so they enjoy it aswell."
IF ... and that is not a typo, its a big IF ... people would demand OPTION to adjust the game the way they want, while maintaining curent system for others ... i would quite honestly dont give a shit ...
As i said, its single player after all ... so do whatever the hells you want in *your* game, just dont mess with mine, and we will be cool.
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.
Question is:
Why pick between them in the first place, since curent system is allready implemented and all the other group demand is left it as it is.
See i would totally understand that Larian would need to pick, if there would be two groups demanding some system changes that would require complete rework each ...
But that is not the case. :-/
To stick with my own stupidly exaggerated example:
You demand to tie everyone hands ...
I demand so Larian starts to give out ropes, and help people to tie their hands ... as long as they want to ... and leave alone those, who dont.
But the request itself is entirely logical and reasonable
Everyone thinks this about their own ideas.
Options are perfect ... as long as you can get exactly what you want, what is bad about that?
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.
I wonder why is that even important for you ...
Lets say you are right for a second, okey?
Lets say that Larian indeed (for reasons you listed) designed the game poorly ... so what? O_o
As long as you have fun, the game still serves its purpose ... doesnt it?
My feeling there is, if that was their intent, they should have said that.
They did ...
I remember Swen saying quite litteraly "you are helping us just by playing the game, since we gather it all". O_o
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.
Thats true ...
By the way ... how many people DM usualy talks with?
And even more by the way ... how usualy DM resolves problem, where half of his players wants A and half wants B where both options exclude each other?
Just a hint:
- This DM would need to talk with MILLIONS at once ...
- Just on this forum, there is barely 100 people, more like 20 active members lately ... even less of them is active in discusions ... and still we are UNABLE to agree with each other.
- Every DM i know (and i admit i dont know many, cca 5) sooner or later brings up rule zero, if there is an argument ...
Because like you said above, they could just be there for data gathering purposes.
Yes ... that is indeed possible.
But still it would make more sense to me to gather data about system im going to use ... rather than system im going to discart completely and replace. o_O
They could also just be unfinished.
They can ...
On the other hand, year and half in EA ... it would start to remind building a house from the roof. O_o
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.
Every revolution starts with change.
Chances are aproximately 50/50 ... not bcs they would be so equaly ballanced, but for the reason that we have no data to use.
If they're trying to play with those conventions, then they should say so and allow us to properly adjust our expectations.
There is many things people claim Larian "should have said" ...
But they dont listen anyway, so what would be the point.
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.
Yeah that would be fine ...
As it seems Larian dont share this phylosophy ... well, what can we do.
