Mods are an option, however some people do like to play the vanilla game and only mod the game later on. There is a satisfaction, and some element of pride in beating the game "as it was designed". I think many people liked DOS games and liked Larian precisely for that feeling of being cornered and having to work your way out of a situation, and really having to think out of the box - "how on earth am I meant to win this fight?"
Of course nobody is forcing nobody to do anything. You can create tons of different challenges in this game, tons of limitations, mods, etc. The argument is that
1. For a game with as many systems and moving parts as BG3, which allows for SO MUCH creativity 2. With Larian having a history of making tactician challenging and satisfying to figure out 3. The highest difficulty of the game being beatable with a only minor portion of those tools, simply feels wrong
If people want to play the game 'as is' then they can do that but why do they come on fora complaining that things aren't what they wanted? As for gaining satisfaction for 'beating a game' - the game is designed to be completed. None of your 3 points really make any sense. 1. All RPGs have 'many systems and moving parts' 2. So Larian took a particular approach with DOS1 and 2, does this mean that they are now forever locked in to taking that approach because a small percentage of players want to stay in their comfort zone? 3. Why does it feel wrong?
