Posted April 17, 2016
Thorfinn: I see it was a mistake to go with your assumptions arguendo.
Look at what the real reviews said.
Some reviews speak of multi-player problems. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some speak of graphical issues. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some speak of difficulty changing without the player's input. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some complain about the change in movement speed. Beamdog's site acknowledges the change, but says it is intentional.
Some complain about poor dialog. That can mean mostly anything. One professional reviewer said the dialog was good, another said it was forced but good, another used the term "stilted". How "forced" or "stilted" dialog is at the same time "good" escapes me, but maybe they are leaving wiggle room for "great" or something.
Some complained about lack of real choices, that in some places, your replies were just variants of "yes". That might have been part of the basis for the claims it felt too railroady.
Some said the inability to leave an area and return was a bad thing. There was some of that in BG2 and quite a little in IWD. More yet in SoD? I don't know. Don't you think people who don't like that should be allowed to offer their feedback?
All of these sound like legitimate beefs about the game. Things that the fanbase found disappointing, to the point of regret for having purchased it. Things a potential buyer might want to know if he's considering putting down $20. Do we really need 100 reviews covering these same issues? Probably not, though it shows that it's not just one or two malcontents.
And, yet, almost every single 5-star review ignored all these legitimate complaints, and claimed that they were baseless, and were rather all about the one transgendered character. Why is it that these people believe they can ignore the rational reasons given in the reviews, and pretend they know what those reviewers "really" meant?
That's what I meant by over-the-top reaction to the reaction.
dtgreene: I think that, in order to get a good opinion about the game, you need to look for a review that isn't a 1-star or 5-star review. Look at what the real reviews said.
Some reviews speak of multi-player problems. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some speak of graphical issues. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some speak of difficulty changing without the player's input. Beamdog's site says they are working to fix the issue.
Some complain about the change in movement speed. Beamdog's site acknowledges the change, but says it is intentional.
Some complain about poor dialog. That can mean mostly anything. One professional reviewer said the dialog was good, another said it was forced but good, another used the term "stilted". How "forced" or "stilted" dialog is at the same time "good" escapes me, but maybe they are leaving wiggle room for "great" or something.
Some complained about lack of real choices, that in some places, your replies were just variants of "yes". That might have been part of the basis for the claims it felt too railroady.
Some said the inability to leave an area and return was a bad thing. There was some of that in BG2 and quite a little in IWD. More yet in SoD? I don't know. Don't you think people who don't like that should be allowed to offer their feedback?
All of these sound like legitimate beefs about the game. Things that the fanbase found disappointing, to the point of regret for having purchased it. Things a potential buyer might want to know if he's considering putting down $20. Do we really need 100 reviews covering these same issues? Probably not, though it shows that it's not just one or two malcontents.
And, yet, almost every single 5-star review ignored all these legitimate complaints, and claimed that they were baseless, and were rather all about the one transgendered character. Why is it that these people believe they can ignore the rational reasons given in the reviews, and pretend they know what those reviewers "really" meant?
That's what I meant by over-the-top reaction to the reaction.