The point is this: 1. BG3 released with a latter half that some would described as "unfinished" 2. You said you could not defend this, but that you blamed WoTC/Hasbro for this 3. It was pointed out that we actually have a very good reason to believe that Larian is the one responsible for this, because their previous few games released in a similar state, when they had nothing to do with WoTC or Hasbro.
Great.
1) I am not in agreement that DOS1 and 2 were unfinished when they were released. If you have that opinion then so be it. But this is an opinion shared by some people and not by others so given that you would need to prove - objectively - that they were unfinished - this feels like a waste of time. So I don't encourage it or really care. To repeat, I don't care about this at all. It's stupid.
2) It has nothing to do with my argument and therefore I don't have to address it. Again, I don't care what you think about the state of DOS1, 2 or divinity dragon commander. It's irrelevant to what i was saying. I don't care.
3) it's VERY clear you don't even understand what I was actually saying. My argument was based on contracts, corporate thinking, and fiscal needs. It was based on a strategic assessment of how corporations and CEO's think and do business. How that effects the state of games. It was kind of a high concept way to look at the theme of this thread.
In case you missed it. I don't care about DOS1 or DOS2. Not even a little. Has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Hey, just want to make sure you got what I said about not caring about DOS and DOS2.
How about you stop acting so weird?
I don't care that you don't care about DOS1 and DOS2. You "not caring" about DOS1 and DOS2 is kind of irrelevant.
Your argument based off "corporate thinking" is one take. Other people are making a very reasonable argument based off Larian's prior behavior and record. If you watched someone make the same mistake 3 times in a row, it seems a weak argument to claim that it was something special about the third time that led to them making the same mistake. Imagine the following scenario: We watch a man open up a restaurant multiple times.
The first time, it burns down. The second time, it burns down. The third time, it burns down a week after he gets into a fight with a customer.
You say: "Hey, I think it was that customer that burned his restaurant down!" I say: "But what about the previous two times when that customer wasn't there? I think he's the one burning his restaurants down."
And then for some reason you insist: "NO, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS TWO RESTAURANTS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PREVIOUS TWO RESTAURANTS. YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT BASED OFF THE PREVIOUS TWO RESTAURANTS! MY CUSTOMER ARGUMENT WAS JUST TOO HIGH-CONCEPT FOR YOU. YOU DON'T GET IT."
Do you see why this is obnoxious and silly?
As for "proving it objectively", nobody can "prove" such a thing objectively; no one can prove ANY judgment about ANY video game objectively; you can't prove that the state of BG3's act 3 being bad - something you admit yourself - "objectively". All that can be said is that this was the general sentiment at the time, and point to the fact that DEs were made that reworked the latter half of these games to try to improve them.
Edit: Also for the love of god, man, just *state your argument*. I promise you that your "high concept" argument based off fiscal needs and corporate thinking is not nearly as mindblowing as you think it is. Instead of just continuosuly going "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT" and then, when people ask you to explain it, just asking basic simple questions like who the CEO of Hasbro is, just *explain your argument in clear and concise language.*
