Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?
I wanted to say the same thing ðŸ˜
Ehh, I'm not sure framing this like it's a formal debate between us and Larian - where both sides are required to present sound arguments - is really the correct way to look at this.
100% agree that Larian's vision for BG3 is based on their subjective definition of "more fun"
The difference is, between us and Larian, only Larian is actually making the game. If both parties are just offering subjective opinions, why the heck would Larian follow our subjective opinion over their own? Especially when we do not represent the majority of consumers.
I wouldn't be so sure. There are probably reasons they made these changes not related to, "it is fun," but I remember a comment from Chris Wilson (the lead developer of Path of Exile) about technical feedback given on Path of Exile. Keeping in mind, that is one of the games with the most interactive dev teams out there. He stated that whenever players are really upset about a lack of substantive reasoning given for a specific change or mechanical implementation, most of the time, the person responsible for that specific rule change is someone whose dev time is really important and getting them to explain why the change was made adequately to the player base, takes away an hour or two of their time which could be used better elsewhere, to actually improve the game. Furthermore, he stated that in those scenarios, most of the time, having that explanation is not going to mollify the player base even if they then know the reasons why those changes were made.
I imagine with changes to 5e, the situation is similar. There are probably reasons not related to "fun" for why those changes were made, in fact, I could even make some. I dislike the dipping mechanic for example and think that its silly and takes away from the verisimilitude of the world. A reason they may have implemented it is because martial classes have very few actions to perform in combat and so it gives them more actions to do and thereby opens them to becoming more tactical to play. I still don't think its a good change, but that is besides the point.
Anyone could write those IGN promotional articles, they don't need a high level of knowledge of the game's systemics to do so. An article which actually explained the reasoning for changes made would firstly take dev time away from those specific people responsible for those decisions and secondly, for the vast majority of the general public make for dry reading. Keep in mind, those articles are written as advertisement, they aren't written to explain decisions to the player base.
Also, Solasta is fun, so claiming pure 5e isn't fun is flatly false.
Right now I'm hoping that Solasta becomes such a success that its engine becomes the basis for new modules.
Keep in mind, Solasta and BG 3 have different target audiences. What is fun for one audience may not be fun for the other. Both games are in EA, but let us for a moment consider the size and scope of the 2 markets. Here are some numbers from steamspy (keeping in mind that steamspy's numbers are not 100% accurate, but we can still be somewhat confident in them).
â€¢ Solasta 20,000 - 50,000.
â€¢ Baldur's Gate 3 1,000,000 - 2,000,000.
Its blatantly obvious that the crowd of people buying the one game, is not the same as the crowd of people buying the other.