Gaming

I really don't want to use this comment to shame people for getting their start in game design.

But it's really weird to me to see a semi-major internet publication like this highlight comments from a guy with a youtube channel that has 508 subscribers and who has only been a professional game designer for 2 years as head of an indie studio, according to his LinkedIn. Sure, anybody can teach game design and even teach it well. You don't have to be the next John Carmack to do it properly, but it's weird that this guy was highlighted for an article in this way.

Also his first game with the indie studio is some sort of indie MMORPG that's a parody of RuneScape.

I've played through all 3 acts. Obviously in no way have done everything, but I never ran into a situation where your character would get killed for a bad dialogue choice. The "Volo's eye" event referenced is for sure an example of the telegraphed outcome being the opposite of what actually goes down, but I really can't think of another time that happens. Even that choice did not end in death. Some options end in tough fights, and maybe fights above your level, but I was never surprised by them.

Bringing up save scumming is an odd criticism for a CRPG. That has been a long running discussion, but you can choose not to do it if you don't like it. It doesn't mean it is bad game design to include saving whenever you want.

I read this as someone being real mad that the game is chaotic, and it's like, that's the best part about the game to me? There's no ACTUAL DM, so the next best thing is what in my mind I'm calling the "death loop" system, just being able to go back and load a different save. At a game table the DM would, within reason, find a way to work with PCs being ridiculous; since it's not possible to truly replicate that, the game just embeds chaos in the decision trees instead. That's literally what makes it so fun. Most of the time the game is telegraphing what the real dumbass choices are, but I like how it's not always immediately obvious. It keeps me on my toes. And sometimes I just save before choosing the stupidest option simply because I want to watch that shit play out.

I just feel like they've fundamentally misunderstood the point here.

Most of us over at !baldurs_gate_3@lemmy.world seem to agree that the author is either trolling or picked the wrong dump stat for an aspiring game critic.

I wrote a more detailed response over there.

"As soon as I saw what my instructor had to say"...

Uh... Huh... okay then. The writer might be a little close to this piece.

If those are the most fatal flaws... well I guess it's pretty much perfect then?

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read lol. Not to mention these are all just variations of "I didn't like the writing".

But, as a game design student and hobbyist (...)

That's their credentials? Oh no...

Whether you agree with the critique or not objectively the writing of this piece is godawful.

Hmm... I think we're dogging on the author a bit much here. Don't get me wrong, they're clearly swimming in philosophical water that's a bit too deep for themselves, but sometimes you've gotta be clumsy in order to explore topics at the edge of theory.

Let's dial things up a notch and bring Undertale (the Dark Souls of -- nevermind) into the discussion. What does it have to say about branching pathways, tonal consistency, and savescum? It says: I was made for you, please enjoy me.

The game adapts to the audience -- you, that is. You are weird and hard to please, so the game needs to be flexible without feeling compromised. If you want to leave hidden depths unexplored, the game abides. If you want to vivisect every last detail, the game changes to fit your desire.

It's alchemy, of course; both magical and unobtainable, so the author isn't strictly wrong to accuse Baldur's Gate of falling short. It's true: sometimes a gap in the curtains opens up and the illusion is spoilt. With that being said, I think what's missing is the logical conclusion to the criticism: universality -- despite being unobtainable -- is still worth striving for. To be universal is to distill humanity itself, as great and terrible and impossible as that may be (and here you thought I was joking with that Dark Souls jab!).

This is an interesting piece. It reminds me of the quote "The reason reality is often stranger than fiction is that fiction has to make sense or it wouldn't be considered realistic."

The designer's concern that the game doesn't consistently give you all the information to inform consistent expectations from the game world is more of a stylistic decision than an objective flaw I think. One of the core appeals of dnd is that it's impossible to always know what to expect even down to random dice rolls. The game part is very important in dnd, but the roleplaying and emergent narrative are also very important.

If the player is taking it seriously and not save scumming, they are probably not going to have a perfect run and that's by design. What they will have is a relatively unique game experience with its own mix of successes, failures, and discoveries. If they want to be a murderhobo or munchkin they can and since it's one-player no one is going to mind. The game can flex into a tactical rpg or a relatively pure story experience as dnd can, but is not going to be the same experience as a chess game or a novel.