Hmm, I don't really think this is true. These forums have attracted both people praising the game and people complaining about the game. And there's nothing wrong with liking a game that has some subpar elements. I'm a huge fan of BG1, for example, but *Good god* it could be obtuse, brutally so, for someone just starting out the game. BG2 also had its criticisms, even of the *story*, which many agree is one of its strengths (I remember a common one at the time was that it became significantly more edgy than the first game, which to be fair, the way the game starts out? Kind of true.) Spell organization was absurd (God forbid you would try to quickly select spells to use as a cleric/mage.) Even *great* games deserve criticism for the areas in which they fall short.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking a game with subpar elements, but the considerations for what is subpar is subjective. The original games are a good example of this. I love those games, but I think AD&D 2nd Ed is a dumpster fire of a rules system.
But some people love 2nd Ed, not in spite of what I consider convoluted jank, but because of it. The truth that there is disagreement on this point is demonstrative that this is a subjective impression, so I can’t go around telling people that they praising an objectively flawed system. That’s not my place to say.
And of course great games deserve criticism. I have a laundry list of items I would change about BG3, but I would still say it’s genre defining in the same way that the original games defined (and along with Fallout saved) the CRPG genre.
