Oh stop with this stupid argument.
We both know that i will not.
Certainly not until someone at least *try* to explain me what is so "stupid
" about it.
Except its completely right, and it dont fits your *perfect experience* model.
BG3 is a game. A game is a set of rules, not a set of tools.
Actualy "a game
" is set of both ... that and many more.
But a game should not lack of rules to the point players have to create them in their heads.
Hope you are prepared for hard question then: Why
Also the game do not "lack the rules" ... they are right there, they are simply loosened enough to fit everyone.
Have you ever thinked about why games even have difficiulty settings?
THIS is the reason.
It feels like too much of a coppout on the part of the devs. It's putting the onus on the players and saying that if players don't enjoy the game, it's their fault for not playing the right way, absolving the creators of responsibility.
I dont believe this ... especialy that part where player "is supposed to play the right way" ...
That sounds like direct contradiction to what im trying to say ...
When player try to "play the right way" he is "trying to play the way he presumes Devs wanted him to play" ...
Question is if there even is any "expected way to play" in the first place. O_o
What im trying to say is that player should not "play the right way" ... he should "play the way he is having fun and dont give and fuck about the right way" ...
And in that case, yes ... its totally players fault he is not having fun ... i know people dislike to hear it ... but who else is there to blame, if you can do EXACTLY what you want to ... but you dont do it bcs you dont NEED TO?
This kind of mindset fascinates me from psychological aspect more than game design ...
We demand to swim with our hands tied to our waist, since we presume it would be better ... but we refuse to try swim, while not using our hands, to find out what would it be like.
Do you know what will happen once our hands will be tied and we will be thrown in the water?
(Yes it is absurdly extreme example ... but it should help you understand.)
Especially since loads of other games make concrete choices and establish limitations regarding the stuff mentioned, like fast travel and resting, and it works out fine for them and creates a satisfactory experience.
This is inctedibly close minded argument ...
Yes, it certainly bring a "satisfactory experience" for people who likes those limitations ...
Oh surprise, surprise, people who likes something were happy about receiving it ...
But as you can see, their lack also creates satisfactory experience ... for exaple for myself and Icelyn.
So what can we learn from this?
Different people have different taste ... how shocking. :-/
And not only that, but I feel as though that isn't even what Larian is going for anyway.
Its certainly possible that curent mechanics are (or not) there just to gather data.
After all, they should have some measures about how often people rests, if they plan to include any limitations in the result.
But even that would be argument for "play the way you want to" ...
Since (quite logicaly i would dare to say) if nobody will clean whole surface of Act 1 with as little Long Rests as possible, how would Larian gather any data supporting that *this* is the way people wants to play it?
Quite the contrary, if we all will rest after every single combat (just bcs we want to) all Larian will see in their data is that litteraly MILLIONS of peope do exactly that.
If they were to come out and say "hey, we want to make things as free and loose as possible so that players can regulate their own play experience" then sure.
I believe their exact wording was that they would like to "create the same (or as close as possible) freedom as you have on tabletop session".
But short of that, especially since this is a still developing game, why should we think that's what they're going for when it's not an approach that is at all typical of game design? Why should we assume Larian is trying for some unique, avant garde approach
Bcs that is what we have, duh.
What other reason would be there to give players "to test" any other mechanic, than the one you are planning to use?
rather than assuming they're attempting a far more common approach, one which was also taken with the other two games of the franchise?
I came to conclusion from this forum, that list of things that "were taken with the other two games of the franchise" and are not present within BG-3 would be quite long. :-/
So ... i honestly dont see much reason in such argument.