How did this win GOTY?

[💈😂]

I honestly don't understand how people like this game and why this trash is getting beating records on the steam charts. Its not good at all, the combat is boring and just a click fest for 10 minutes until you "killed" all the enemy's. exploration is somehow worse than any top down game i played, the story is a long slow mess, the characters are irritating and the voices actors are terrible. After reading on discussions without bots spamming how amazing this game is non stop, i see that many people do think the same way as me, so why is this sad excuse of a game even selling at this point... is this just another among us, fall guys game that will die in a couple weeks, i don't understand...

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by Rod:

Originally posted by Quillithe:

I don't think slavery being bad was a political agenda in 2013.

I think we kinda agree on that by now. I hope?

Slavery being bad was not main idea of the movie (at most it was secondary). Fact that you guess it's plot by the name, proves my point.

Not really, I haven't watched any of those movies, so the only point it proves is that I don't watch a lot of movies.

Or maybe it proves that when the title is really descriptive people will assume it describes the plot?

I'll agree with both!

[The_Dipl0mat]

Originally posted by Nomad:

Fun fact: 90% of the steam profiles who creates negative threads regarding BG3 in the forums are private profiles. They are like: "Oh! I don't like this game and so it is a bad game."

And different people have different tastes so its perfectly fine for someone not to like the genre of BG 3 but that does not make it a bad game.

I was never a fan of the CRPG and turn based game but Divinity Original Sin 2 made me love this genre and now BG 3 is just on a different level. (But still the game has its flaws)

A fair chunk also don't own the game. I assume a small percentage has it on alts or borrowed. But certainly not the majority

[Nykko]

Originally posted by Dr. Bakare Tunde:

I honestly don't understand how people like this game and why this trash is getting beating records on the steam charts. Its not good at all, the combat is boring and just a click fest for 10 minutes until you "killed" all the enemy's. exploration is somehow worse than any top down game i played, the story is a long slow mess, the characters are irritating and the voices actors are terrible. After reading on discussions without bots spamming how amazing this game is non stop, i see that many people do think the same way as me, so why is this sad excuse of a game even selling at this point... is this just another among us, fall guys game that will die in a couple weeks, i don't understand...

91 reasons but your post ain't 1.

[YOU]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Fun fact: 90% of the steam profiles who creates negative threads regarding BG3 in the forums are private profiles.

Soooo....?

These profiles tend to create negative threads on the forums of the games which they don't even own.
I think you can figure out the rest what I am trying to say...

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

A better marketing campaign doesn't lead to a game that sold way, way more copies then you'd expect from its genre and at the same time have such a high user rating across different rating platforms.
Your criticism would make sense, if there were any indication of a gap between user opinion and sales etc.
That's why the whole context is important in your quote...the second question that immediately followed your quote is the more crucial one:
"How many new people it could get into the genre to enjoy a game that they normally wouldn't play?"

That's not the point. The point is what "GOTY" means. If it is just popularity, that doesn't mean "best". Those are different concepts for a reason. There are popular things which aren't good, and good things which aren't popular. The argument that "good" MEANS popular is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

Is it though?
Games are an entertainment product.
Their main objective is to entertain their audience.
So measuring how well they did their one and only job is the only real metric required to judge which product was more fit for its job.
Well, it's at least the only thing that matters to me....
It's the only metric I measure any game against in the end....that's why I won't be buying RDR2, no matter how awesome it's snow shader is or how realistic its horse ball physic is. The game still bored me, when I tried it at a friends console (and all previous R* titles bored me). So none of its other qualities mattered at all.
Yet Ican still admit, without loosing anything that it was a wildly popular title, and did its job (like many other R* titles) for its intended audience.
It still is a good game (probably even great), just not made for me....and that's perfectly fine...I just didn't bother with it, and instead went on to titles that were way more interesting for me, without complaining in the RDR2 forums that it is a bad game and didn't deserve its accolades because I personally was bored to hell by it's many, many empty windowdressing content, just meant to give you the illusion there's something to do...

[Ranpo]

Well it just did. Either you cope and move on with your non GOTY game or you keep whining about BG3, the GOTY of 2023.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Is it though?
Games are an entertainment product.
Their main objective is to entertain their audience.
So measuring how well they did their one and only job is the only real metric required to judge which product was more fit for its job.

The reason is that the following will happen:

A: BG3 is not a good game
B: Oh yeah, how do you explain that it won GOTY then and that it is so popular?

It is obvious that A does not mean "BG3 is not a popular game". Therefore, B is committing a fallacy and it is obscured by conflating "popular" with "good".

Yeah, if a game did a good job entertaining it's audience it's surprisingly a good game...because it's an entertainment product...that's what it's meant to do....
What else do you suggest a game is meant to do?

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Yeah, if a game did a good job entertaining it's audience it's surprisingly a good game...because it's an entertainment product...that's what it's meant to do....
What else do you suggest a game is meant to do?

You did not understand me. In the above example, do you think it is reasonable to assume that A is talking about popularity?

Depends on the perspective of the one who's making the statement.
That's what my R* Example was all about.
For me RDR2 is a bad game
At the same time on a more global objective perspective it's a great game.
Both statements are true. Both are right.
So I can't answer your question without specifying the context:
In other words:
That statement might be true for you individually and it would not talk about popularity.
On a more objective perspective, by all we can observe that statement is false, because objectively based on it's rampant popularity we can say that there's a lot of people who greatly enjoy the game.
And from that perspective yes, it is talking about popularity, as a metric to measure how many people are entertained by the product BG3.

[Maj. Grumpy]

You don't understand because you are simply not that bright.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Depends on the perspective of the one who's making the statement.
That's what my R* Example was all about.
For me RDR2 is a bad game
At the same time on a more global objective perspective it's a great game.
Both statements are true. Both are right.
So I can't answer your question without specifying the context:
In other words:
That statement might be true for you individually and it would not talk about popularity.
On a more objective perspective, by all we can observe that statement is false, because objectively based on it's rampant popularity we can say that there's a lot of people who greatly enjoy the game.
And from that perspective yes, it is talking about popularity, as a metric to measure how many people are entertained by the product BG3.

Why do you need context? Does it make sense for anyone to claim that it is not popular? It IS popular. I don't think anyone disagrees on that.

Because your statement is ambiguous so it can't be answered without context:
Do you mean a personal "BG3 is a bad game" from your subjective perspective or do you mean an attempt at an objective take on "BG3 is a bad game"?
Both interpretations are valid and the answer depends on which of these interpretations you are talking about.

[The92Ghost]

The only thing that I do not like about this game is the combat. But everything else, I think they did great job. If they update that combat, to more modern type combat from third-person and first-person perspective and get rid of the turn-based combat. This game would have been the best ever and probably would have been my first buy before Starfield for example.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Because your statement is ambiguous so it can't be answered without context:
Do you mean a personal "BG3 is a bad game" from your subjective perspective or do you mean an attempt at an objective take on "BG3 is a bad game"?
Both interpretations are valid and the answer depends on which of these interpretations you are talking about.

I don't know what you mean by subjective and objective here. The point is that it is not about popularity, which is obvious, because saying that it is not popular simply does not make sense.

Popularity is a metric of how many people enjoyed the game, and as such is pertinent to trying to objectively measure how well this game did it's job of entertaining its audience....
How else would you measure how well the game did exactly what it was designed to do?

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Popularity is a metric of how many people enjoyed the game, and as such is pertinent to trying to objectively measure how well this game did it's job of entertaining its audience....
How else would you measure how well the game did exactly what it was designed to do?

Nvm. You keep going in circles. What I am saying is not that difficult, but somehow you just don't get me.

Again, if popularity is not a metric, how do you judge how well a game did the job of entertaining its audience?

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by lankaras:

Originally posted by Powerword: Shill:

Again, if popularity is not a metric, how do you judge how well a game did the job of entertaining its audience?

IT IS NOT ABOUT THAT. Jeez. You need to take a break, it's like you can't take in information.

Well, you claimed that popularity is not a metric for how good a game is - eg how well it does its job of entertaining its audience....surprisingly that's the job of a game. So I'm trying to get you to tell me what other metric you have to measure how good tha game is at its job to come to the conclusion that BG3 is a bad game and thus doesn't deserve goty...

[Bersekr]

Shooting my shot here before tgis thread will get inevitably locked.

Obvious bait is obvious bait. These threads are a dime a dozen in here. If you guys don't like this game go play some other game, I 100% guarantee it's gonna be more enjoyable then arguing with people if their favourite game is or isn't the best game of the year.