I'll take the language element under consideration here - to be honest, until you mentioned it, I had not supposed that you might be less confident in English, so you're doing as well as any and better than some ^.^
I'll make some short, likely blunt responses to a few things here - please don't take them as rude or abrupt; the intention is just that they be simple and clear responses, to remove confusion or misunderstanding where possible.
For example, I may quote you like this and respond with a flat, simple answer:
==
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 did not ask you to respond to me, and I did not say that.
I said that on the metric of the number of spell choices available, BG3 was lesser than its predecessors, who had more. That is not a statement of one game being better than the other; it is a statement of one particular objectively factual metric by BG3 is not objectively superior. That is all.
==
Short quotes like that are not intended to be argumentative, just clarifying and corrective. With that in mind...
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
There is no debate to be had here; it's factually false.
From my perspective, you have been given very clear comparison points wherein one is superior or inferior to the other, but you have dismissed them, and continued to say that no-one is giving you any; that is how it looks from my perspective of your posts.
When you say that something is 'objectively' better than another thing, you generally need to qualify which metrics of comparison you're using to define that, and it needs to be something that can be put on a non-subjective scale. If it can't be, then we can't make a claim of objectivity from the beginning. So, when someone says that a game is objectively better than another in every way except the subjective, we know that that is a hyperbolic statement, and is factually untrue - we know this automatically, and without any need for conversation, because all we need to do to prove that it is untrue, is list one element by which we can objectively compare the two games, on an objective scale, where the other exceeds the first. It's very easy to do, but disproving a hyperbolic flasehood is also largely without meaning or purpose (which I think is what you tried to point out when it was done), except to convince the speaker to be more reasonable and back off from using hyperbole if they wish to discuss things in a sensible way.
This was done, specifically to convince you to back off from the silly hyperbole of your statement, and come back to sensible discussion - it was done with simple metrics that could be used to disprove the silly statement easily. "On the metric of the number of spells the game has; the metric being that more spell choice is better than less, the earlier game is objectively superior (has more) to the newer (has less)" It's simply true... but the objective metric itself is largely
without meaning unless we begin ascribing subjective elements of preference to it. That's something we can discuss, but we
cannot claim objective truth once we begin to do so.
"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.
there are lots of threads, all over this forum, of people nit-picking in quite advanced analytical detail about elements of BG3, with in-depth breakdowns of them, as why they find them to be unsatisfying compared to the parallels that have existed in the industry and been advanced and improved on by other contemporary, or even older, games. They're in many places - mostly in feedback and general, but also in the story, build and character sections. I feel as though many of the folks talking in this thread are assuming the knowledge of and understanding of many of those long, on-going discussions, and the depths to which they have been pulled apart in detail.
I don't feel that anyone has, however, insisted that you should have consumed every piece of available media before you can participate in the conversation - no-one has said or even implied that, and I'd point out again that your accusation of this, towards others, is more hyperbole that only undermines what you are trying to say. Trying to paint what someone else has said as being far more extreme and ridiculous than they wrote it doesn't help your case, it just makes you look dishonest and as though you're fishing for a fight. MY best advice would be to try to avoid doing that; look at what people have actually said, and work with that - the more you inflate what others say in order to make their position look more monstrous for you to fight against, the less seriously other people will take
You.
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.
I would maybe give BG3 a solid 6/10, with my experiences so far, but I've not played all the way to the ending yet. I've made many threads and detailed discussions about the various elements of the game that I find lacking, flawed, dissatisfying or poorly handled, across the breadth of things from characterisation, visual design, cinematography, system implementation, map design, quest design, code flagging, UI design, UI interaction, and a host of other elements as well. I've participated in many conversations about these elements and discussed them, along with detailed discussions of what I feel would work better, or why I feel certain things don't work. I don't like to say "this would be better" - because I'm not the designer and I can't speak for everyone, but I will explain strongly why I don't think various things work well, or that I find frustrating, invasive or dissatisfying, and give instances of similar elements that worked better in other games, from my perspective.
What I don't have is the energy or time to repeat them all to you personally now... and I'm sorry for that, but I simply don't. the threads are there if you want to read discussions about these topics, however. If you feel like no-one has ever given these answers or gone into depth on them, and you'd like to see those discussions, just dig around the forums here and lurk a little; they're here, and often conducted with great deal more depth and thoughtful analysis than you'll find in most other game communities... we have, over the years, tried very hard to keep things civil, positive and constructive here. We try to discourage argument and encourage discussion.
So...
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.
Here, language like this is the sort of language and behaviour that will put you on the wrong side of the moderation, and could get you cautioned to behave better. It's not necessary to talk about other posters like that, and there is never a justification for answering poor behaviour with more poor behaviour in turn.
