Point is, perhaps it's unfair to criticise them for lack of internal consistency if that is not what they're shooting for.
What? I mean, sure maybe Larian isn't aiming for consistency. But that doesn't mean it's unfair to criticize them for that or that lack of consistency is good.
I was being sarcastic.
In part, I was saying that given BG3's rather poor track record with internal consistency so far, we shouldn't be too surprised if a given mechanics (Opportunity Attack) has different names in different places.
In part, I've long been of the opinion that our goal when providing feedback should not be so much to tell the devs "I think you should aim for this rather than that, because I like my games better when they do this". Rather, it should be tell the devs "your vision, what you're trying to achieve is that, well, the way you're currently doing it fails at delivering that because reasons". At least that how I'd like my feedback to be.
With that in mind, I was thinking that it was maybe pointless to tell Larian "hey, your game isn't even consistent with itself", if this would lead Larian to reply (virtually, in their heads, since they don't reply to anything) "oh but internal consistency isn't remotely part of our vision. We simply don't care about consistency". Of course, we would then be able to then reply that
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
This is bad game design [...]
Although, I don't fully agree with you here. I think this is atrocious game design.
