So to get you guys right: If I want to criticize something, then I have to point out all the things they did great, even if there is barely anything they did "great" for me personally? They did some things good and some above average, but beside the voice acting (which is not even really Larian's work if we are precisely) there is nothing 85-100 rating worthy. Doesn't mean there isn't lot of stuff thats somewhere in the mid and upper 70s range or maybe even lower 80s.
so many bad critics like you claim, how come many people still debate and talk and reply?
Maybe to point out the glaring errors in the criticism?
Like "if enough votes can be bought to win, how come Larian won when other studios can access to much deeper pockets?"
I guess someone already pointed it out, but Larian had the best timing for the game, it had been on top of it's hype when the award votes opened and many, many people claimed they haven't even seen act 3 (sometimes not even act 2) at that point but they gladly voted for BG3. As you know, act 3 is where Larian's lack of passion and willingness to deliver a very good (read: 85+ rating for me) is way more obvious.
Beside that, I read several articles how people hope for the "underdog" Larian to win while competing against more established developers like SQEX, CDPR or Nintendo. Its the old David vs Goliath thing people tend to feel part of the underdog.
