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?
I had a longer response to more points but the forum ate that, so I'm just going to focus on this, since it's the part I'm most concerned with.
If the game is designed poorly then, fundamentally, that means Larian failed in makingit. I would argue that the closest thing to an objective measure of success and failure in creative endeavors is whether or not the creation ellicited the reaction that the creator wanted. If we assume that the game is poorly designed for the reasons I set out, then that means fewer people will enjoy it because a poorly designed game isn't as fun as a well-designed one. People who would have liked the game if it had been well-designed. Sure, some people might still like it, but that's in spite of the game, not because of it. Take a bad movie for example. If a horror movie makes you laugh from beginning to end, then it's still an entertaining movie, but it's a failure as a horror movie, and needs to be judged on those merits. The fact there's something to like in it doesn't redeem it. There's something to like in every movie, just like there's something to like in every game. To say that it doesn't matter if a game is well designed just because some people enjoy it is to disregard the effort and care people have put into good, polished, well-designed games. And when you talk about how, if a player doesn't have fun in the game then it's their fault, that's only true if the game is well-designed. Take FromSoft titles. I wouldn't enjoy those games, because the difficulty of them is too much for me and the idea of constantly dying and struggling doesn't appeal to me. But the games are still well made, and for the target audience of the games, they're brilliant. I can recognize that, regardless of my peronal tastes, those games set out to do somethign specific, to evoke a specific feeling and experience, and they succeed in doing that. It's just an experience I don't want. If I played those games and disliked them, it's because it's not meant to appeal to me and my tastes, that's not the fault of the game. It's my fault for trying a game that doesn't mesh with my tastes and abilities. Meanwhile with a bad game, those are also meant to appeal to a target audience, but if it's poorly designed, then that target audience is unlikely to enjoy it, because it fails to be appealing to them. So it's the game's fault they don't have fun.
To summarize the "so what?", if the game is poorly designed, I'm probably not gonna have fun in the first place. It's less likely that I or anyone else will have fun with it. And that would be the fault of the game, not the people playing it.
