Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Yeah i still believe some of them are good ideas and dont deserve to be put in a same box as the others. :-/
You got me there, i believed you were serious ... good one.

Quite honestly, I agree. I sincerely hope Larian is prioritizing things appropriately. Since we still have broken Shove, I'm worried they don't.

I also want you to know I wasn't intentionally trying to trip you up or be a jerk. I was just reading all the back and forth and thought a little levity might be good.

We DO ask for so many options. SO many. I do think it's a bit excessive. I just started a game of WotR, and thought, "There are SO many options. I don't care enough to go through them all. Heck with it. I'll just select Normal difficulty and move on."

I wonder how many people do that and never play with all the options. So you have to wonder, are those options really worth the work?

It's a conundrum. There are those that won't even look at them, and just play Normal, or maybe even Story mode, if there is one. Then there are those that will go through the list twice to make sure they didn't miss anything they might want, no matter how extensive that list is. The trick is, which group is the "core group"? Because both will claim that they are, in fact, the "target audience". They'll believe this because their "bubble" will all want the same things, or choices on those things, and so, they'll believe that that's what everyone wants, regardless of what may actually be true. I see this a lot, especially in MMOs, but I'm not really "in on the ground floor" like I am here on a lot of other games.

But, just as an example, the fact that this game is based around 5e had no bearing on my purchase decision. I was drawn in by Baldur's Gate 3, not a particular edition. Does that make me the "target audience" for the marketing? I legit have no idea, because I'm not in any bubbles. I'm not sure if any of my NWN crowd is looking at this game or not, I've lost contact with some of them, and none of the ones that I'm in anything like regular contact with have expressed whether or not they'll be playing, let alone what drew them in, if anything did.

So, it comes down to background numbers, and how hard something would be to implement w/out spending a year on it. When one reads "we were too ambitious", this usually translates to "we were trying to provide too many options", in one form or another, and not necessarily "a separate icon for each level of a spell". (Just a random thought there) For me, more options is better, where feasible. I may even pick through them to utilize some of them, especially on playthroughs after the first one, where I may actually ignore the complete list, unless there's something I know about that I want to include/exclude from my game, such as the EZ Mode dice that got added a while back, which, once I discovered it was on by default, I turned off. So, adding options for players is a good thing, because I can't imagine the "I want more 5e" crowd was going to be happy with loaded dice, right?