Compared to a lot of Triple-A games out there, it is polished.
It's a pretty big game with a lot of variations. And as i said; It just got it's first patch and more are coming.
It took Bethesda about 12 years before they got around to fixing the "Games for Windows Live" thing in Fallout 3. Which literally made the game unplayable. That was a problem.
I'm sure they'll get Wyll fixed for you, if he hasn't already been in this patch.
But now I'm intrigued... If you don't think you're setting the bar high, what games are you comparing BG3 to that were that bug free at launch?
Scope is not an excuse for bugs and I'm tired of people making that argument. If they couldn't deliver this scope as a polished game, maybe they should have reduced the scope.
Gonna be real with you, this is a terrible take. I'd much rather have games pushing boundaries at the cost of some bugs rather than a bunch of the same old regurgitated elements over and over to be safe.
GTA3 had plenty of bugs, the Purple Nines glitch being particularly infamous. Literally nobody out there is saying "wow, I wish they'd stuck with the top-down style games instead of going 3D because this bug has seriously inconvenienced me."
What boundary is BG3 pushing, exactly?
We wouldn't have any games with the stardards you're suggesting. I think you'd be hard pressed to live up to them yourself, if I'm being honest.
No product is without it's faults and flaws.
I'm sorry you happend to be one of the people that got that bug.
If it's as big a deal for you as it sound like, I'd recommend getting a refund. It's as simple as that.
We wouldn’t have any games with the stardards you’re suggesting.
This is the most ridiculous and hyperbolic thing I've read all week.
All games launch with bugs. Not necessarily game-breaking bugs, but bugs nonetheless.
There is simply no way developers can account for every tiny potential conflict in their code. So thank god for the internet and that fixing them post-launch is a concept.
My guy, stop stabbing that straw man, he did nothing to you.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
The simple solution for you is just not buying games at launch.
You're exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack. In other words, you're trying to argue against a point I did not make. A straw man.
Probably. You didn't answer the few questions i asked.
You said you weren't setting the bar high, but failed mention any other game for comparison when I asked.
Just kept insisting that the two bugs you encountered at launch were completely unacceptable.
I'm just thinking you'd have a hard time with anything that has been made the last 20+ years. It sounds absolutely awful.
I'm not interested in comparing BG3 to other games. I'm interested in judging it on its own merit. And I've encountered far more than two bugs. Plenty of games across 20 years have been released with fewer bugs than this game, what an absolutely absurd comment.
You see, that's are kind of comment that makes you seem hostile, which in turn makes it look like you have no basis for your claim.
Calling absurd arguments absurd is hostile?
Not once have I attacked your character or used crass language. Not really sure what you want, but I'm quite done. Have a great day.
Compared to a lot of Triple-A games out there, it is polished.
It's a pretty big game with a lot of variations. And as i said; It just got it's first patch and more are coming.
It took Bethesda about 12 years before they got around to fixing the "Games for Windows Live" thing in Fallout 3. Which literally made the game unplayable. That was a problem.
I'm sure they'll get Wyll fixed for you, if he hasn't already been in this patch.
But now I'm intrigued... If you don't think you're setting the bar high, what games are you comparing BG3 to that were that bug free at launch?
Scope is not an excuse for bugs and I'm tired of people making that argument. If they couldn't deliver this scope as a polished game, maybe they should have reduced the scope.
Gonna be real with you, this is a terrible take. I'd much rather have games pushing boundaries at the cost of some bugs rather than a bunch of the same old regurgitated elements over and over to be safe.
GTA3 had plenty of bugs, the Purple Nines glitch being particularly infamous. Literally nobody out there is saying "wow, I wish they'd stuck with the top-down style games instead of going 3D because this bug has seriously inconvenienced me."
What boundary is BG3 pushing, exactly?
We wouldn't have any games with the stardards you're suggesting. I think you'd be hard pressed to live up to them yourself, if I'm being honest.
No product is without it's faults and flaws.
I'm sorry you happend to be one of the people that got that bug.
If it's as big a deal for you as it sound like, I'd recommend getting a refund. It's as simple as that.
This is the most ridiculous and hyperbolic thing I've read all week.
All games launch with bugs. Not necessarily game-breaking bugs, but bugs nonetheless.
There is simply no way developers can account for every tiny potential conflict in their code. So thank god for the internet and that fixing them post-launch is a concept.
My guy, stop stabbing that straw man, he did nothing to you.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
The simple solution for you is just not buying games at launch.
You're exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack. In other words, you're trying to argue against a point I did not make. A straw man.
Probably. You didn't answer the few questions i asked.
You said you weren't setting the bar high, but failed mention any other game for comparison when I asked.
Just kept insisting that the two bugs you encountered at launch were completely unacceptable.
I'm just thinking you'd have a hard time with anything that has been made the last 20+ years. It sounds absolutely awful.
I'm not interested in comparing BG3 to other games. I'm interested in judging it on its own merit. And I've encountered far more than two bugs. Plenty of games across 20 years have been released with fewer bugs than this game, what an absolutely absurd comment.
You see, that's are kind of comment that makes you seem hostile, which in turn makes it look like you have no basis for your claim.
Calling absurd arguments absurd is hostile?
Not once have I attacked your character or used crass language. Not really sure what you want, but I'm quite done. Have a great day.
You too, mate
I would rather have bigger scope but less polish