I'm sure what you just wrote in that top sentence makes sense to you in your own mind... It does not make much in the way of rational sense to my reading though. I cannot respond to something that is unintelligible to me and lacking in coherent meaning; you've conjugated a bunch of words and phrases together, but they don't mean anything of substance; whatever you were trying to convey did not come across, I'm sorry to say. If you'd like to try to explain what you're saying a little more, I'm happy to listen, but if it's waxing philosophical, it might be better suited as PM, rather than derailing this topic further.
Regardless, consider your 'reminder' noted, but also unnecessary, since everyone who is mature enough to post on a public forum is aware that a review of a game is a recounting of a personal and subjective opinion.
If you're disputing that some of its elements are factual, and are disputing those facts, then, as I invited before, I'd welcome you to point out the errors and offer corrections, if you would like to contribute to the discussion.
For example... you took issue with the statement that there is more reactivity for some races than others in the first act; this is factually true (objectively), and severed as the basis for a complaint (subjective opinion). Do you actually dispute that fact, or do you just disagree with the opinion that that particular detail reflects negatively on the game? It sounds like (from your edit) it's the latter. That's fine! The challenge you've set, though, is not really relevant - you might like people to joust at the windmill of your choosing, but I'm not interested in doing so, and the OP certainly has no obligation to do so. If the OP listed a fact, and then commented on how they felt that negatively impacted the feel of the game for them, telling them that no game previously has done that thing more, and challenging them to find one, is not really a coherent response, or a relevant addition to the conversation, at least not in my opinion. What matters for the review is how that element made the game feel for them, and if that
disparity caused negative feelings, then
that is the comment that they are making.
I'd also invite you to stop throwing around nebulous and indistinct recriminations and dismissals, without actually directing them towards any substantive point - because as I said, that kind of posting tends to come off as attacking for the sake of starting conflict.
Addendum:
I think when you make a harsh critique, please make a comparison to what you think is better, The WoTR/KM comparison is decent, so we can understand how laughable/warped/understandable/closer to truth that opinion actually is. I mean comparing BG3 to DA is insult to BG3, compare it to WoTR/KM, PoEs or at least prior Infinity Engine games, but DA/Mass Effect, plain comical.
It has been politely requested in this thread already that we not insult, deride or mock each others opinions. You are continuing to do so, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop. You have your opinion on the companions in other games, compared to this one, and others have theirs. I'd personally take Linzi and Jubilost over the entire cadre of BG3 companions in a heart beat; that's my opinion, based on my personal tastes and experiences - calling that 'warped' 'laughable' or 'comical' is not appreciated and is not acceptable.
