Oh, I wasn't talking about that kind of censorship. I just meant how majority will use all means available (ordinarily - downwotes, in some cases as far as reports for stuff like instigation, trolling, etc., and almost always social pressure of vocal faction on the media of choice).
Case study: try going on Reddit and posting an unpopular opinion. It will get buried under a pile of dislikes and will never see the light of day. Your karma will take hit too. You may even get reported, depending on how bad is your study subreddit is.
People really don't like opinions that contradict the "accepted" opinion of their platform. And the "accepted" opinion is usually determined rather early on in the life cycle of that platform/community, and from that point begins the process of selection: people with "correct" opinions are welcomed, accepted and encouraged to stay and participate in "positive discussion", while people with "incorrect" opinions are made feel unwelcome, marginalized (unsurprisingly, since any "wrong" opinions are not allowed to gather any significant following in said community/resource) and ultimately leave and don't come back. Now, if we move to a platform that's not about just 1 thing, it gets more complex - there may be more topics that require you to have a "correct" opinion. And that's where we get to the censorship. While what I am about to describe may not be an explicit form of censorship, it nevertheless is limiting how freely people can express what they think. Say, your opinion aligns with what's established as "correct", but a topic comes up where you don't agree to the popular opinion. Most of the people will just either stay quiet, or reluctantly agreed with the majority because now there is a good amount of social pressure on them. On platforms like Twitter such social pressure might go beyond the internet and spill over into personal life - for example it may get you fired (which I am using purely as an example of it going too far, it's unlikely to happen over an opinion about some video game, or is it?).
Of course the degree of severity of what I described varies, and often you will find some people still going against the majority, but these results will always be biased in favor of platforms dominant faction. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle - these communities do their best to attract people who agree and chase off people who don't, therefore there is always majority that agrees and because there is always a majority that agrees it's hard for unpopular opinions to gain any friction, therefore people with unpopular opinions stay quiet or leave, etc.
While this is not explicit censorship, it achieves the same goal: keeps some of the people quiet either through social pressure or via technical means such as downvoting, reporting, feed display algorithms that hide controversial topics, etc..
Also as you could have noticed I didn't mention the actual owners of said platforms. They may or may not have some indirect influence via search algorithms and feed personalization, but all of it is the work of people who use the platform as users, sometimes user appointed moderators and such.
Point is: social platforms tend to degrade into echo chambers where any "incorrect" opinions are not welcome. So "most people on Twitter" is a poor indication of anything - asking Twitter or similar echo chambers about anything is just that - yelling your questions into an echo chamber.
I think the way the negative or criticism-y opinions are presented is the most important thing. If you walk inside a positive forum about BG3 and start whining about how 'Larian ruined BG' or how 'they became sell-outs', it's quite possible that you're going to be marginalized and kicked out. There's constructive criticism and there's drama that borders on trolling.
When I hear how BG3 is not BG because of the UI or the portrait position in the screen, I can't help but shake my head in disbelief. Like, really? THIS is what made Baldur's Gate for you guys? The whole point of BG3 *for you guys* is a nostalgia trip? You want to see the old UI to think that this is the game you remember playing? You want the portraits from top to bottom to remember the game you used to play?
I mean, were the BG fans ever D&D fans at all?
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Sarezar
I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.
Because RTwP is fun.
RTwP is faster paced.
I mean, if you're playing on some low difficulty setting where you don't need to micro-manage everyone for any 0.3s period you can steamroll any combat encounter in turn based as well, it won't take long because you don't need to think about anything, I promise you that. Personally I didn't mind my characters running into fireball as much as I did mind them not doing anything without 10000 hours of AI setting up (without the AI setting up they'd just waste spell slots casting magic missles at basic 1 hp rats)
And let's not forget those amazing moments in the old games …
Oh yes, it was f&%king awesome when an enemy mage would start the battle by casting mass confusion on my party and everyone would start running around, while the only PC who could cast dispel magic on ONE of the PCs was almost guaranteed to fail, BECAUSE THE F&%KING SPELL WOULD TARGET THE PLACE THE PC WAS STANDING AT THE TIME YOU CAST IT - meaning that by the time the spell is on its way to hit the character, the confused character has ran to the other side of the screen, making dispel magic utterly useless. What fun! What amazing times! What amazing battle system! How jolly it was when I reloaded the battle 20 times until I would get a chance to save vs this spell!
F&%k the real-time-pause RTUEIORUJADP battle system. F*$k it to hell, burn it to the ground, and I hope to God I don't ever see it in a D&D game ever again.
Baldur's Gate never became a cult hit because of the real-time pause system. People loved the lore, the setting, the characters, the music, the customization, the (back then) AAA production values and the cheating b&*%shit they would pull in order to spare themselves of difficult encounters (i.e. dying from a boss battle, then loading the game and casting fireball in the under-fog-of-war-area the boss character is in order to kill most of his underlings and damage him before the battle actually starts in order to have an edge when it does - yeah, we all did that).
BG3 is the most D&D video game I've ever seen since Temple of Elemental Evil and I don't care what the BG1-2 purists say. They wear their nostalgia goggles proudly, forgetting the silliness the original games had and accusing Larian Studios of making BG3 is light-hearted adventure (which is another HUH!? complaint - was I the ONLY ONE who saw the intro video or the teaser almost a year back ?).