![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"In Larian’s RPG, a computer is your subpar Dungeon Master"
There are some articles that I read, like this one, that then compel me, through morbid curiosity, to scroll down and look at the comments afterward, explicitly because I just know that comment section is going to be a colossal trashfire, and it's mildly, vaguely gratifying to be proven right, as I was in this case.
So, what the article actually said (despite yet another "probably chosen by an editor and not the article author" headline) was that while D&D is pretty cool when you're sitting around a table with a bunch of friends and that while BG3 is pretty cool when you're talking to your party members and such, the limitations of the D&D system (which requires a human DM and imagination to make it really work well) butting up against the limitations of an unforgiving computer-driven video game means that the combat can be rather tedious and unsatisfying at times (to the point of, yes, requiring save scumming).
What the commenters under the article mistakenly seem to think the article said: "D&D is terrible and BG3 is terrible and you should feel terrible for liking either and also I am a nonbinary woman thing who deserves to be roasted over hot coals for being a nonbinary woman thing who dares to write about video games or table top games and also make sure to mention how I used to write for Kotaku but don't anymore when you comment on this article along with any other ad hominem attacks you care to come up with."
"Objective review" is, and always has been, an oxymoron, despite what some of these commenters might try to have you believe (in the context that the above linked article is, they claim, "not an objective review").
Anyway... it's kind of funny, because I've actually been mostly avoiding articles about BG3, because A) I haven't played it myself and probably won't be doing so for a while yet, and B) the vast majority of the articles I've been seeing pop up in my Google News app have had headlines along the lines of "Here's how to pull the lever at that one specific place in Act 2 in just the right way to get the Glorious Jujube of Ultimate Destruction" or "Players find a way to build a monk so that he does four million damage per turn" or "Man there's really a whole lot of fucking in this game and here's my own very specific story about characters I've fucked in this game and how and why," and are, thus, utterly uninteresting and irrelevant to me. I find the articles that are less about BG3 specifically, like this one and the one about save scumming, to be more interesting.
There are some articles that I read, like this one, that then compel me, through morbid curiosity, to scroll down and look at the comments afterward, explicitly because I just know that comment section is going to be a colossal trashfire, and it's mildly, vaguely gratifying to be proven right, as I was in this case.
So, what the article actually said (despite yet another "probably chosen by an editor and not the article author" headline) was that while D&D is pretty cool when you're sitting around a table with a bunch of friends and that while BG3 is pretty cool when you're talking to your party members and such, the limitations of the D&D system (which requires a human DM and imagination to make it really work well) butting up against the limitations of an unforgiving computer-driven video game means that the combat can be rather tedious and unsatisfying at times (to the point of, yes, requiring save scumming).
What the commenters under the article mistakenly seem to think the article said: "D&D is terrible and BG3 is terrible and you should feel terrible for liking either and also I am a nonbinary woman thing who deserves to be roasted over hot coals for being a nonbinary woman thing who dares to write about video games or table top games and also make sure to mention how I used to write for Kotaku but don't anymore when you comment on this article along with any other ad hominem attacks you care to come up with."
"Objective review" is, and always has been, an oxymoron, despite what some of these commenters might try to have you believe (in the context that the above linked article is, they claim, "not an objective review").
Anyway... it's kind of funny, because I've actually been mostly avoiding articles about BG3, because A) I haven't played it myself and probably won't be doing so for a while yet, and B) the vast majority of the articles I've been seeing pop up in my Google News app have had headlines along the lines of "Here's how to pull the lever at that one specific place in Act 2 in just the right way to get the Glorious Jujube of Ultimate Destruction" or "Players find a way to build a monk so that he does four million damage per turn" or "Man there's really a whole lot of fucking in this game and here's my own very specific story about characters I've fucked in this game and how and why," and are, thus, utterly uninteresting and irrelevant to me. I find the articles that are less about BG3 specifically, like this one and the one about save scumming, to be more interesting.
