Well, when a single Act is as long as many games.. I think that is why I made an opinion on the company from one Act. It's freaking long.
It's not that long...
Even for a first time player, talking to everyone and exploring every nook and cranny it's not particularly long as an Act... (At least in my first few runs where I did that, multiple runs still didn't end up with it being as long as a typical game)
It depends on the gamer and their available time. It's not just ingame time to consider but the scope of real-time that moves along as you experience a game.
Originally Posted by Taril
Originally Posted by KiraMira
And I can't help but having opinions when playing games. This is cool, this is not, etc. I would find it odd if you felt nothing playing a game.
I form opinions when playing games. But the opinions are of that particular part of the game. Not the game overall.
I don't form a generalized opinion of an overall product before experiencing the overall product. Whereby my opinions of all the individual parts of the product can be collated into the generalized overall opinion.
We can mince words on this, but I mostly agree. I had an opinion; "the game is amazing", it changed to "the game has some big problems" by Act 3 so that is my current opinion. I'm curious if Patch 7 will change my opinion again or not.
Originally Posted by Taril
Originally Posted by KiraMira
Every game does represent the company they come from, the history and which way they will most likely take in the future. Judging them on what they make is sensible, imo.
Not necessarily. Some games have difficulties or a different take. Maybe they had a different team or leader. An example is Dark Souls 2, it had a different team working on it so it has less influence on the main titles that are made by the main team.
Sometimes a company produces a dud game, which is not indicative of the company overall and they can come back and make something great again afterwards. Or vice versa, making a great game then going back to making slop (I.e. Ubisoft and Black Flag...)
Judging Larian based on one game, especially BG3 (Which is a title where they had to conform to the established DnD ruleset) can be misleading, especially if expecting more DnD rulesets in the future (Something that is not typical to Larian with their Divinity games not using it and the homebrew they did trying to move away from it and expressions from Sven about how they found it restrictive).
I expect that future Larian titles are most likely going to be different to BG3, with them going back to what they find comfortable in the Divinity style rather than trying to continue with DnD-esk rules. It just seems to be what they're more interested in based on how they tackled the DnD aspects of the BG IP.
The real question is are they going to be doing EA? Thus, will they continue their trend of making 1 really good and polished act and then forget about the other 2 (Or more) acts that comprises the game entirely?
I mean I judge them on what experience I have as a player. It may or may not be what we get in the future and it's why I'll be waiting before I (maybe) buy rather than buy on release for full price. As I probably would have had the game maintained Act 1 quality on the whole game. The fact that it was so amazing for me in Act 1 (and Act 2) is the reason I got interested in the ones making the game, the company, and marked the name. I'm not saying I never want anything to do with them or their games ever again, only that I would be careful investing my quality time and money into them.
If they go with EA, I would be even more sceptical, you have said it yourself that they seem to have track record with EA act 3 going down the drain. After BG3 I believe you and share any scepticism.
