Meaning you seemingly have some sort of proof that we can say for CERTAIN that EA was overwhelmingly positive for more than the specific act being worked on.
Yes, and I mentioned changes made during EA that addressed players complains and benefited the entire game, which you quickly dismissed as “they would happen anyway” because they were inconvenient. It is third time Larian has done EA like that, and Sven has been saying how helpful feedback from EA was in making the game better.
Obviously, act1 benefited from being stress tested by an audience, and act 2&3 didn’t have this advantage. Similar situation happened in
D:OS2. But if player data is so helpful, how would not having it at all make all acts better? If internal testing isn’t enough to test two acts on their own, how would not having access to EA data, somehow make it easier to test all three acts by internal testers only?
I also think you do not understanding how counter arguing works. You speculated, and I counter-speculated in return. I can flat out disagree with your hypothesis and present a different viewpoint, without being required to have a proof before doing so. I just saw some flaws in your logic which I aimed to challenged. I am challenging way of thinking that brought you to your conclusion, not conclusion itself, as neither of us are capable of understanding impact EA had on Baldur’s Gate3.
