I don't even hate when Tuco does his usual Tuco dialogue because he's still got a point to make. I disagree with Tuco a lot, but I think he makes valid and fair contributions to discussions about the game and its shortcomings. I do enjoy praising the chain system as a means of summoning him, though. I just wish the "negativists" would give "positivists" the benefit of the doubt like "positivists" do for the "negativists," but apparently that's too much to ask. Did I miss out on something before joining the forum in an active capacity? Did Icelyn kick a puppy or something? I don't agree with what Icelyn has to say all the time, but I don't hate her for it, or even think less of her. For example, I think Halsin is a boring character and wouldn't mind seeing less of him, but I can see why Icelyn likes him.
Hell, don't get me wrong. 99% of the time I enjoy Tuco's points and Ragitsu's points. And JandK's points. And Ragnarok's points. They all have valid things to say about video games in general, gaming systems and their consistency, and what makes a good game. I don't understand why people can't look at Icelyn's tastes and be like, "Well, those tastes are not my own, and here is my reasoned argument for why my tastes lead to a more cohesive experience, but I understand why, knowing what you value and the kind of experience you and other players are pursuing, you might prefer the way Larian has already gone." It's not admitting ideological defeat. It's not cowing in the face of opposition or dissent. It's just recognizing the basic fact that video games are multifaceted pieces of media that appeal to many different types of people and tastes, thus leading to people enjoying remarkably different things about the game, thus leading to heavily divergent philosophies on what makes a game good. It's much better than the refrain of, "I think objectively; therefore, I am objective." If I like something Larian did in BG3 (a game I happily paid for and logged plenty of hours in), I don't think it makes me a fanboy or a cheerleader to say, "I like the execution of this mechanic." Hell, there are games I fucking hate about which I can find something to praise.
I have a broader philosophy about feedback, though. I think feedback which is 100% negative for a work such as this is not constructive. If we say no to EVERYTHING, we aren't giving the Larian team any actionable direction and our posts amount to a great screaming into the void of "We hate everything." We have to affirm SOMETHING (not a lot, maybe a few things) to provide a sense of direction. The overwhelming majority of feedback can be negative, but some positive feedback is necessary to provide a semblance of direction, a base on which one can make modifications. Prior to WWII, some countries repaired damaged planes by simply repairing the points of damage when the plane landed. During WWII, instead of repairing the points of damage from the landing planes, the engineers reinforced the undamaged points of landing aircraft, reasoning that if the planes were still landing, the vital points must not have been hit. Reinforcing what still works is an important part of feedback, and sometimes we disagree about it, just as sometimes we disagree about what should be added or removed. But, again, heavily divergent philosophies about what makes a game good. It is important to understand what is reasoned argument and what is simply taste. And that no one is lesser for following another school of thought, provided they can provide a reasoned explanation. Which brings me to explanatory power. But I think everyone's had enough of my feedback philosophy.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
