Aren't Tuco's chess analogy and button analogy good enough an explanation? I think those were well put (even if seemingly a bit emotional) and I really don't want to repeat if reading through them again more thoughtfully can suffice. Pls consider reading through once more, then pls let me know if those are completely alien for you to understand, then I'll try to come up with my one examples.
No. The thing is if people want to play like that, they can. If you don't like it then that is fine too. You don't have to play it or like it, but you can't take that choice from other people.
Originally Posted by neprostoman
EA players are people who made this game possible at this scale in the first place and they played a COMPLETELY different game which is likely going to be substituted with some casual bs.
Also Mr. Hardcore, as previously stated, i played the game in EA too. and i welcome the changes as they make BG3 accessible to more people. So stop the gatekeeping.
Can you not call me that? This is impolite.
You being fine with those changes and liking them for what they are has nothing to do with them being poor design choice. Also, don't play the victim please, no one is taking the choice from you, you were instead given all the choice imaginable and more. Good for you, but bad for the game, because those new systems are fundamentally flawed:
- Multiclassing is dominant over the 'pure' classes. Both are ways people like to play. No balance between approaches which was present before. - Scaling of spell slots makes proper high leveling in some of the classes useless, that means a game feature is useless which is bad design. - Removal of racial ASIs with no proper substitution for half-races destroys the racial balance. Ones favorite race now pure trash -> bad system, bad design. - Respecing your companions to be different classes favors gameplay and hurts the story, which is also bad design between two subsystems in the game. - Same for respecing yourself.
