Originally Posted by Niara
You are coming across as confrontational, fractious, and more than a little bit facetious, Dex. If it's not your intention to come cross that way, then please understand that that is how the tone of your posting reads. You 'sound' as though you are spoiling for a fight and wanting other people to 'come at you'. Again, if that's not what you're trying to do, then it might be best if you take some extra time to check your posts and vet them for tone before you post them - I have to do this quite often, and usually give my posts three or four passes until their language is acceptable. Even then, I sometimes come across too harsh.

(Response to the above 'challenge' remark, spoilered for moderate off-topic since the conversation is trying to move on)


Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
The difference is I'm trying to show you how foolish your list are. It's a sarcasm. Which you know and yet you think I'm serious, that I'm doing "exactly that".

What you're demonstrating is that you did not read or engage with what I said, and that you're still not doing so. You come across as fishing for an argument which I'm not interested in having with you.
Yes; you do sound rude.
Yes; you're using confrontational language and baiting terms in this thread.
No; I'm not interested.

Here's the point of my original post:

You said:

Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
Because literally everything else outside the Story is objectively worse than BG3.

You claimed that literally Everything outside of the subjective story element, was Objectively better in BG3.
That is what you said.
There's no �I was only talking about this specific thing when I said that� - you said it bluntly as a universal.

Max responded asking you not to claim something so obviously false and silly, presumably because he, like others here, find that it undermines anything else of value you might have to contribute:

Originally Posted by Maximuus
Don't say "objectively" when you are giving your own opinion...
No, everything else is not worse in BG2.


You responded by doubling down on your assertion:

Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
I am sorry because I'm gonna say exactly that. BG1/2 is objectively worse than BG3 on everything else except for story which are highly subjective.

You repeated, with no qualification and as an absolute universal, that BG1 and 2 are objectively worse in every way, and by every metric of comparison, except subjective story-related ones. You claimed this was an objective truth, external to anyone's subjective opinion. That is what you said, and reiterated; no hedging, qualifying or side-stepping, you were very clear.

Everyone here knows that this statement is ridiculous, but more importantly, that it is Objectively False. Everyone talking here knows that it's a rather silly thing to assert, and will just make you look like you're not interested in having a serious conversation, moreso for trying to defend it after the fact.

It takes away from the weight or value of anything else you might say or any other way you might contribute to the discussion, because it is so silly a claim to try to assert; maybe it's sarcastic hyperbole - and presumably it is - because I don't think anyone here thinks you're that stupid; I certainly don't... but the point being made to you is that using hyperbole like that throws a lot of shade on your own legitimacy in the conversation, and actively undermines the chances of anything else you have to say being taken seriously - or even read at all, by some folks.

That is all I dropped in to say. Don't do that; it detracts from your ability to get your point across or to be taken seriously by others.

Quote
What I was trying to do is to stop "abstract" assertion that "BG2 wuz better" by asking -specifically- what is it that make you think that, and ideally, admit that it's just rose-tinted biased opinion, which I believe it actually is.

By all means do that � but don't do it by using nonsense hyperbole that makes you look the fool and detracts from the value of anything else you might say.

For the record: You also may have missed the point where I said I was not forwarding my own opinion on the matter at all (which I have at no point given on this topic), just illustrating an issue in your comment using the examples that others had already talked about in the thread.

Quote
Let's talk *specifically*....

No. That is not and was not in any way related to the point I was asking you to consider in respect to your discussion habits.

Challenge away; this isn't a fight or an argument, and I'm not interested in your apparent desire to make it one. I'm only offering some advice to you, that you are free to take or leave as you see fit. I can't offer it any more clearly than this, so that is the end of this tangent as far as I'm concerned.


Outside of that, I will say that the things most recently brought up for specific discussion on are all, every one of them, subjective matters. The claim that having your character ability scores affect your dialogue options, and having dialogue checks rolled for conversation options is 'better' than if those things were not being present is, itself, a subjective opinion; Dex may 'prove' all they like; there are others who feel that your character scores should not determine what you can or cannot say in roleplay, and that certain things should not require checks at all - that requiring checks is actually a hindrance to character play, and that having in-your-face dice rolls across the screen in the middle of conversations is immersion-breaking and ultimately bad for investment in the story and immersion in scenes. One may attempt to 'prove' all they like � any opinion that any of that makes one game superior over another is subjective.

Hiya.



I used to have "not an english native speaker" on my signature but it seems to be demeaning to myself so I ditch it.

Thank you for summarizing the point I made and I totally get where you came from and for that: I apologize to you.

However there are things I have to made clear regarding some of the point listed:

1. Yes, I claimed "Everything else" except the subjective story elements is objectively better in BG3 than BG2. I am willing to debate whether this factual or not, but the thing is, no one has given me a point that prove BG2 are better in [insert aspect here] than BG3, instead, I've been given repeatedly the same point: "I don't like [insert aspect] from BG3". The other person is not trying to prove he is right, he is trying to prove I'm wrong. There is a difference.

What I meant by being specific is the topic. You can talk about literally everything, but not an abstract thing like "I like BG2 better", but "I like the random encounter design in BG2 better than it is in BG3", then we will have a starting point to prove they're right.

Let's use the analogy to make it more clearer, just in case I fudged my english somewhere: Imagine two people conversing with each other, one wears pants, other wears joggers. The joggers complain that the pants worn by the other guy looks bad, he doesn't explain why except, "it just bad and not what nature intended". In a good "debate" the pants wearer can defend why his pants is good with supporting arguments including but not limited to: the jogger's pants, which he is not wearing, nor telling us what is his preference. An argument such as this cannot move forward and can only devolved into unhealthy argument, or in my case devolved too "I like BG2 story more".

What I was originally expecting was, somebody would explain why having, say, Random encounter (an example) - like it was in BG2 was better in comparison to everything handcrafted like it is in BG3. I can argue that handcrafted encounter means each encounter has purposes and likely better designed with multiple solution other than "kill the enemy", the other guy can argue that random encounter means character build, especially combat ones, always relevant, not only in certain part of the game, your character will always be "tested" by random encounters, which only can enhance your Roleplay experience.

Instead what I get is: "read the book".

I am in my late 20s and the country I lived in only that exists less than 100 years old. Dungeon & Dragons was never part of the zeitgeist, Gold Box games, early Infinity engine games? How do I know? Computer only becoming mainstream within this 2 decades. (Though I play it.. in 2010s) ---- the thing is: I do not need to explain this to the other person I engage with, he presume everyone has some set of knowledge and an Universal point of view in how we perceive media.

He implies that everyone would share the same opinion as he is if they read every single media, because only then, I would understand it. Isn't that sound condescending? While complaining about miniscule, non-life threatening mechanics which is: You are able to throw a vial of liquid in the world of Baldur's Gate 3. Because in a game that trying to simulate DnD/TTRPG experience, player wanting to do something out of the box cannot possibly happen.

You'd notice I didn't mention other of his, "complains", because he didn't even trying to prove he is right. He just want to complain. At least that is how I perceive it.

2. Why did I claim "everything else" is better in BG3? - to challenge the "Abstract" assertion people like to parroting in this forum. This is not my first time. I don't think BG3 is a magnum opus of an RPG (it's Disco Elysium), but some of forum members like to assert that this game is mere between "7" or "I'd rather die than play it". I am sick of this assertion of bad faith actor such as these because I would prefer honest conversation: What would you prefer then? --- which has never been answered. And the funny thing had the table flipped and their favorite game confronted with the same logic he used, he would at least struggle to answer it.

That is why I challenge people to argue openly about it. To show how warped their own thinking is! - Does this mean only I have unwarped opinion, objectively fact based and fact checked? Absolutely not, I am absolutely biased. The difference is I am *aware* that I am biased, people are not, this person are likely not. He is neck deep on his own warped delusion that he cannot see other version of point of view to be relevant. I almost pity them.

3. Why I don't respond to your argument specifically? To be honest I didn't take your post seriously since you wrote "BG2 has more spells than BG3, ergo BG3 better". I think it's a joke. A good joke, perhaps. I don't get it.

ps. why the hyperbole?

Because I (think) I'm replying to hyperbolic assertion, a 8-10/10 general consensus game, somehow bad, sayeth some pompous person on the forum. I think I obliged to deal the same hyperbolic language which such person.

Last edited by Dext. Paladin; 31/10/23 09:11 AM.

Councellor Florrick's favorite Warlock.

Back Black Geyser's DLC: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/grapeocean/black-geyser-dlc-tales-of-the-moon-cult (RTwP Isometric cRPG inspired by BG1).