The devs made it clear when they announced the game that there goal was end of 2015 (or early 2016), so it is a bit early to speculate about any "release delays."
In the Q&A on youtube Trent states that they aren't in the business of releasing games on time, they are in the business of making quality games. Patience is a virtue!
The problem with the "wait for a bug free release" meme is it delivers a false promise. Every release has bugs and the Beamdog model -- issue large patches very infrequently -- means that if you care about a particular bug you will be waiting a loooong time for a fix to arrive.
The slayer change bug didn't bother me -- but it bothered plenty of other people. The nerfing of the sleep effect doesn't bother some people but it does bother me. When the spell 'emotion' was changed I stopped playing my sorcerer builds and have been waiting for a fix. Waiting for quite some time -- I lost count of how long. I even mentioned the bug during the public period but no change . . .
The Obsidian model is better -- get something out there, start burning the midnight oil to fix the issues that fans really care about and, after the triage, start combining patches with new content. Fans get the game and every so often they get free content.
I'm going to buy SOD as soon as comes out but I'm doing so because I like 2nd ed and Baldurs Gate. I still hope someone else will come along and build upon what beamdog has done right but also acknowledge that some parts of Beamdog's model just don't work. Perhaps then we can get a game that is done right AND on time.
@killerrabbit As I said when the patch for BG2EE was released about the sleep effect change, it's a major change and it's very bad that this was overlooked.
Of course, it's impossible to have a full bug-free release, simply because given developer can't have absolutely every system with every specification available to them. One game might have a bug on an AMD graphic card, but not on a Nvidia one, or vice-versa. The thing is, if we are technical, bugs will always be present since a video game has minimum requirements. Said requirements could be there just as an indication to tell you "Hey, the devs cannot help you out with these old machines!" - doesn't mean the game won't work of course.
I myself am certainly not against hot fixes, I agree with @killerrabbit on that - they are pretty useful for some rather irksome bugs that might break the experience for some players. However, given the age of the Infinity Engine, I wouldn't be surprised if this may create some issues from time to time, or more often than not even. Now my question is : would an opt-in beta for hot fixes be possible? I know for fact some Steam games have such opt-in games. Would it potentially work on the Beamdog client version of the game? Or maybe just 'download file and place it in folder' kind of deal, until an official, full patch is released? Of course, these are merely ideas - I honestly (and perhaps shamefully) haven't come across any bug that made my gaming experience any worse.
As for the Siege of Dragonspear release date : - My hope is Q4 2015 - My bet is on Q1 2016 - My Nostradamus hunches... Friday the 12th of February 2016, 10 AM PST.
Bonus points to Beamdog for a 21st of December release, the 17th Baldur's Gate birthday.
I'd personally much rather they wait until they have a product that they are proud of and release it then, rather than setting some date and pushing out the door whatever they have done at the time.
It is tough for us who are anxious to play it, but respect their ability to choose when to release and know that it will be a quality product when they do.
I'd much rather a later polished game than a Christmas release, Pillars of Eternity was rushed out with some ridiculous bugs that should never have made it through, same with Wasteland 2.
PoE had some annoying bugs I was impressed by how quickly they were fixed and how receptive the Obsidian crew was to fan feedback. The fans told the devs what they wanted and the devs responded . .
Sure, we all want polish but bugs are inevitable. The problem with setting up a praise echo chamber is this:
1. The game gets released 2. Those primed to say it is great say it is great 3. The devs tell themselves they did a good job 4. The bugs that need to fixed don't get fixed for 9 months or so
Which, again, is annoying if you hoping that a given bug will be fixed. I really do like the beta hot fix idea.
tap. tap. Is anyone listening? hello?
TL;DR priming to praise polish will presumably prolong present procrastination and postpone patching -- prefer prompt production
We actually have a pretty well-balanced echo chamber on these forums; the people who have problems have no issue vocalizing them, and the people who don't have problems offer some good perspective while people are waiting for fixes.
I think you'll find that most echo chambers have at least some margin of "complaints"; the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
Fall release? The original announcement was end of 4th quarter 2015, the final day of that quarter is 31 Dec 2015. Therefore according to that it won't be late until after that date. The revised announcement was when it's ready, my reasonable assumption would be by the end of 1st quarter 2016. In light of that I wouldn't start complaining about it being late until after 31 March 2016.
The nerfing of the sleep effect doesn't bother some people but it does bother me.
I don't usually play characters that primarily use Wizard spells, so I don't know exactly what the change affected, but how does the present state of the Sleep spell compare to the spell description?
Page 138 of the 2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook; top of the 1st column, 3rd paragraph of the spell description: "Slapping or wounding awakens affected creatures but normal noise does not. Awakening requires one entire round."
When the spell 'emotion' was changed I stopped playing my sorcerer builds and have been waiting for a fix.
You mean the Hopelessness effect? Page 157; top of the 1st column, 6th complete paragraph: "7. Hopelessness: The affected creatures submit to the demands of any opponent: surrender, get out, etc. Otherwise, the creatures are 25% likely to do nothing in a round, and 25% likely to turn back or retreat. It counters (and is countered by) hope."
The entire spell descriptions for context:
Sleep (Enchantment/Charm) Range: 30 yards Components: V, S, M Duration: 5 rounds/level Casting Time: 1 Area of Effect: Special Saving Throw: None
When a wizard casts a sleep spell, he causes a comatose slumber to come upon one or more creatures (other than undead and certain other creatures specifically excluded from the spell’s effects). All creatures to be affected by the sleep spell must be within 30 feet of each other. The number of creatures that can be affected is a function of Hit Dice or levels. The spell affects 2d4 Hit Dice of monsters. Monsters with 4 + 3 Hit Dice (4 Hit Dice plus 3 hit points) or more are unaffected. The center of the area of effect is determined by the spellcaster. The creatures with the least Hit Dice are affected first, and partial effects are ignored.
For example, a wizard casts sleep at three kobolds, two gnolls, and an ogre. The roll (2d4) result is 4. All the kobolds and one gnoll are affected (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 2 = 3 1/2 Hit Dice). Note that the remainder is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre.
Slapping or wounding awakens affected creatures but normal noise does not. Awakening requires one entire round. Magically sleeping opponents can be attacked with substantial bonuses (see Combat, page 90).
The material component for this spell is a pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket.
Emotion (Enchantment/Charm) Range: 10 yards/level Components: V, S Duration Special Casting Time: 4 Area of Effect: 20-foot cube Saving Throw: Neg.
When this spell is cast, the wizard can create a single emotional reaction in the subject creatures. The following are typical:
1. Courage: This emotion causes the creatures affected to become berserk, fighting with a +1 bonus to the attack dice, causing +3 points of damage, and temporarily gaining 5 hit points. The recipients fight without shield, and regardless of life, never checking morale. This spell counters (and is countered by) fear.
2. Fear: The affected creatures flee in panic for 2d4 rounds. It counters (and is countered by) courage.
3. Friendship: The affected creatures react more positively (e.g., tolerance becomes goodwill). It counters (and is countered by) hate.
4. Happiness: This effect creates joy and of a feeling of complacent well-being, adding +4 to all reaction rolls and making attack unlikely unless the creatures are subject to extreme provocation. It counters (and is countered by) sadness.
5. Hate: The affected creatures react more negatively (e.g., tolerance becomes negative neutrality). It counters (and is countered by) friendship.
6. Hope: The effect of hope is to raise morale, saving throw rolls, attack rolls, and damage caused by +2. It counters (and is countered by) hopelessness.
7. Hopelessness: The affected creatures submit to the demands of any opponent: surrender, get out, etc. Otherwise, the creatures are 25% likely to do nothing in a round, and 25% likely to turn back or retreat. It counters (and is countered by) hope.
8. Sadness: This creates unhappiness and a tendency toward maudlin introspection. This emotion increases chances of being surprised by -1 and adds +1 to initiative rolls. It counters (and is countered by) happiness.
All creatures in the area at the instant the spell is cast are affected unless successful saving throws vs. spell are made, adjusted for Wisdom. The spell lasts as long as the wizard continues to concentrate on projecting the chosen emotion. Those who fail the saving throw against fear must roll a new saving throw if they return to the affected area.
The relevant portion of Combat, page 90:
Table 51: COMBAT MODIFIERS Situation Attack Roll Modifier Attacker on higher ground +1 Defender invisible -4 Defender off-balance +2 Defender sleeping or held Automatic* Defender stunned or prone +4 Defender surprised +1 Missile fire, long range -5 Missile fire, medium range -2 Rear attack +2
*If the defender is attacked during the course of a normal melee, the attack automatically hits and causes normal damage. If no other fighting is going on (i.e., all others have been slain or driven off), the defender can be slain automatically.
@ValamirCleaver Currently in BG2EE if an enemy is affected by say a Sleep spell or an Emotion Hopelessness if they are hit they will wake up. This was introduced in BG2EE 1.3 and is a known issue (#11613).
Also could you please put the pnp description in your post in a spoiler tag. Its a lot to have to scroll through at the moment.
We actually have a pretty well-balanced echo chamber on these forums; the people who have problems have no issue vocalizing them, and the people who don't have problems offer some good perspective while people are waiting for fixes.
I think you'll find that most echo chambers have at least some margin of "complaints"; the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
Thanks for taking time to reply. I see things differently -- I think a number of the critics or 'complainers' left the board at some point. Most left after having their complaints about Hexxat deleted and/or thread locked. The attitude is/was "we've heard enough, the devs aren't going to do anything, stop beating a dead NPC"
Those who like the lack of complaint make the same point I am making when they say that the tone of this forum is superior to, say, obsidian or blizzard.
. . . the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
I agree but I think the two issues are tied together. On other boards fans complain, the complaints build momentum, reach a critical mass and eventually the devs respond. This doesn't happen here and I think that part of the reason it doesn't is because it is difficult for complaints to build momentum. I think the game would be better if this dynamic were allowed play out. I also think it would be better for Beamdog because the I *suspect* that some of the complainers who left went on to troll the review sites.
@Dee Can you / would you say if the issue of beta hotfixes have ever been discussed at Beamdog?
So the spell currently functions "more-or-less" as per the spell description I quoted?
Sleep does. Well, more-or-less indeed but more-or-less is pretty much how everything follow the rules in baldur's gate. Emotion: Hopelessness is another story: slapping people a bunch isn't known to instill hope, and nowhere does it says in your description that it should. Now, just lying on the ground as if one was unconscious isn't really proper behaviour either, but again. more-or-less.
We actually have a pretty well-balanced echo chamber on these forums; the people who have problems have no issue vocalizing them, and the people who don't have problems offer some good perspective while people are waiting for fixes.
I think you'll find that most echo chambers have at least some margin of "complaints"; the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
Thanks for taking time to reply. I see things differently -- I think a number of the critics or 'complainers' left the board at some point. Most left after having their complaints about Hexxat deleted and/or thread locked. The attitude is/was "we've heard enough, the devs aren't going to do anything, stop beating a dead NPC"
Those who like the lack of complaint make the same point I am making when they say that the tone of this forum is superior to, say, obsidian or blizzard.
. . . the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
I agree but I think the two issues are tied together. On other boards fans complain, the complaints build momentum, reach a critical mass and eventually the devs respond. This doesn't happen here and I think that part of the reason it doesn't is because it is difficult for complaints to build momentum. I think the game would be better if this dynamic were allowed play out. I also think it would be better for Beamdog because the I *suspect* that some of the complainers who left went on to troll the review sites.
@Dee Can you / would you say if the issue of beta hotfixes have ever been discussed at Beamdog?
I try not to comment too heavily on our internal processes, because, y'know, internal. But we recently released some hot fixes for Android to address a critical hardware issue that prevented people from playing the games on their devices. And when it comes to "complaints", I try to read them all.
The people who got their threads locked after bashing Hexxat were not making constructive comments; they were (by and large) making destructive and reductive comments about her race and sexuality, which resulted in (and in some cases started with) flaming and other rule-breaking behavior. We have rules here for a reason, after all.
It may seem unbalanced because at the end of the day everyone here is a Baldur's Gate fan, even if they're not a Beamdog fan. But we do see the criticisms as well as the praise. In fact, in most cases I personally ignore the comments of praise (for anything except color choices on NPCs and class kits), because what's most likely to help us grow aren't the people saying we did a great job, but the people saying how we could have done better. If I have any complaints about the critics here it's that they sometimes word their criticism in a way that makes it harder to process in a constructive way. That's true of the internet in general though.
Given that we're all Baldur's Gate (or Infinity Engine for a broader scope) fans here, then isn't praise also just as good feedback as constructive criticism; Praise in this context being "you've improved on the original in a way that I like, it's now Better(tm)"
I've seen a lot of "constructive criticism" here that amounts to "you should have done it this way instead, because this is the way I like it", and I'll say that not all of that results in "better".. since better is subjective anyway.
TLDR: IMHO, both forms of feedback are as valuable as each other. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Certainly. It's a balancing act. And everyone chooses their own narrative when sifting criticism.
This is getting woefully off-topic, so I'll leave it with the following spoiler-button and then I recommend either PMing me or starting a new thread in Off Topic if you want to respond:
When I read negative feedback, one of the first questions I try to answer is: Why is this person asking for what they're asking for?
I'll give a (fictional) example. Say I release a game where the main character wears a purple suit and fights with a cane. For the sake of this example, let's say the character's name is Oscar, and he's based on the playwright Oscar Wilde, who also wore a purple suit and used a cane, though not for fighting.
Now, the game gets released, and 90% of players love Oscar. They think he's personable, it's easy to invest in his story, he controls really well, and (in this fictional world) everyone thinks purple suits are super stylish. So, awesome! I made a great game, right? Work done, end of day, collect the pay check? Not quite.
10% of players hate Oscar. Not only that; they take to the message boards to voice their displeasure, saying he "looks like a pansy", that he "could not be more stupid", that he "fights like a dumbass". At the bottom of this negative-feedback barrel is (among others like it) a suggestion to make Oscar fight with a sword because "canes are lame".
As the creator of the Oscar character I know why I gave Oscar a cane: it's intrinsic to the character, and replacing it with a sword would violate my goal of making Oscar Wilde a badass video game character. But I also can't ignore the 10% of players who think he's lame, and the suggestion of changing his weapon gives me the clue I need to figure out what's wrong: Oscar Wilde's fighting style isn't exciting. It's not that canes in general are lame, it's that the cane in this instance is poorly executed and needs work. I know that in my next game, Oscar II: Oscar Goes Wilde, I'll need to devote some resources to making sure that Oscar's fighting style is more satisfying to play.
That's a huge reduction of how negative feedback is still helpful, but the gist of it is: if someone is telling you something needs to be changed, and you disagree because the proposed change would undermine your goals as storyteller or designer, then you have to look deeper than the proposal into the psychology of where that proposal comes from. Even if you end up dismissing the comment as "This person is actually wrong and even the people who hate Oscar disagree with them", the exercise of processing it can be valuable, if you can distance yourself from it enough to not take it personally when the critic says "Oscar is terrible and that Pennyway guy who created him is also terrible."
If you're someone who plays a game and hates it, but you care about the developer and want to see future games improve, you owe it to the developer and to yourself to convey your feedback in such a way as to maximize its usefulness and minimize its discouragement. (That also holds true for any kind of creative endeavor, be it writing, film, television, visual art, theatre, dance, or music.)
Emotion: Hopelessness is another story: slapping people a bunch isn't known to instill hope, and nowhere does it says in your description that it should. Now, just lying on the ground as if one was unconscious isn't really proper behaviour either, but again. more-or-less.
If someone was striking you with a weapon with obvious intent to at least wound you if not outright incapacitate and/or kill you, you would allow them to do so? You have no sense of self preservation?...
"oh great, now that meanie is hitting me with their sword. just perfect. get it over with then, I just don't see how I can do anything to stop you, everything is so.. hopeless."
I'll take the cue to PM but in closing I will say that of course we agree that homophobic and racist comments are beyond the pale. And that Oscar Wilde is amazing. But I do think so legitimate "complaints" were lumped with unacceptable ones. I'd like to see more complaints and more signs that complaints are taken seriously.
So we agree on some matters and I'll mail you a cookie for engaging. Hope you like molasses.
Comments
The slayer change bug didn't bother me -- but it bothered plenty of other people. The nerfing of the sleep effect doesn't bother some people but it does bother me. When the spell 'emotion' was changed I stopped playing my sorcerer builds and have been waiting for a fix. Waiting for quite some time -- I lost count of how long. I even mentioned the bug during the public period but no change . . .
The Obsidian model is better -- get something out there, start burning the midnight oil to fix the issues that fans really care about and, after the triage, start combining patches with new content. Fans get the game and every so often they get free content.
I'm going to buy SOD as soon as comes out but I'm doing so because I like 2nd ed and Baldurs Gate. I still hope someone else will come along and build upon what beamdog has done right but also acknowledge that some parts of Beamdog's model just don't work. Perhaps then we can get a game that is done right AND on time.
Hey Beamdog -- stop fearing hot patches.
But there's a fix - https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/39228/mod-dont-wake-up-original-unconscious-sleep-behavior-for-bg1-ee-and-bg2-ee#latest by @Tresset . It's a very important fix and I understand completely how without this fix playing a sorcerer can be a no go for you.
The thing is, if we are technical, bugs will always be present since a video game has minimum requirements. Said requirements could be there just as an indication to tell you "Hey, the devs cannot help you out with these old machines!" - doesn't mean the game won't work of course.
I myself am certainly not against hot fixes, I agree with @killerrabbit on that - they are pretty useful for some rather irksome bugs that might break the experience for some players.
However, given the age of the Infinity Engine, I wouldn't be surprised if this may create some issues from time to time, or more often than not even. Now my question is : would an opt-in beta for hot fixes be possible? I know for fact some Steam games have such opt-in games. Would it potentially work on the Beamdog client version of the game? Or maybe just 'download file and place it in folder' kind of deal, until an official, full patch is released?
Of course, these are merely ideas - I honestly (and perhaps shamefully) haven't come across any bug that made my gaming experience any worse.
As for the Siege of Dragonspear release date :
- My hope is Q4 2015
- My bet is on Q1 2016
- My Nostradamus hunches... Friday the 12th of February 2016, 10 AM PST.
Bonus points to Beamdog for a 21st of December release, the 17th Baldur's Gate birthday.
It is tough for us who are anxious to play it, but respect their ability to choose when to release and know that it will be a quality product when they do.
Sure, we all want polish but bugs are inevitable. The problem with setting up a praise echo chamber is this:
1. The game gets released
2. Those primed to say it is great say it is great
3. The devs tell themselves they did a good job
4. The bugs that need to fixed don't get fixed for 9 months or so
Which, again, is annoying if you hoping that a given bug will be fixed. I really do like the beta hot fix idea.
tap. tap. Is anyone listening? hello?
TL;DR priming to praise polish will presumably prolong present procrastination and postpone patching -- prefer prompt production
I think you'll find that most echo chambers have at least some margin of "complaints"; the question is whether or not those complaints are heeded and acted upon.
Page 138 of the 2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook; top of the 1st column, 3rd paragraph of the spell description: "Slapping or wounding awakens affected creatures but normal noise does not. Awakening requires one entire round." You mean the Hopelessness effect? Page 157; top of the 1st column, 6th complete paragraph: "7. Hopelessness: The affected creatures submit to the demands of any opponent: surrender, get out, etc. Otherwise, the creatures are 25% likely to do nothing in a round, and 25% likely to turn back or retreat. It counters (and is countered by) hope."
The entire spell descriptions for context:
Sleep (Enchantment/Charm)
Range: 30 yards
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 5 rounds/level
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: Special
Saving Throw: None
When a wizard casts a sleep spell, he causes a comatose slumber to come upon one or more creatures (other than undead and certain other creatures specifically excluded from the spell’s effects). All creatures to be affected by the sleep spell must be within 30 feet of each other. The number of creatures that can be affected is a function of Hit Dice or levels. The spell affects 2d4 Hit Dice of monsters. Monsters with 4 + 3 Hit Dice (4 Hit Dice plus 3 hit points) or more are unaffected. The center of the area of effect is determined by the spellcaster. The creatures with the least Hit Dice are affected first, and partial effects are ignored.
For example, a wizard casts sleep at three kobolds, two gnolls, and an ogre. The roll (2d4) result is 4. All the kobolds and one gnoll are affected (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 2 = 3 1/2 Hit Dice). Note that the remainder is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre.
Slapping or wounding awakens affected creatures but normal noise does not. Awakening requires one entire round. Magically sleeping opponents can be attacked with substantial bonuses (see Combat, page 90).
The material component for this spell is a pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket.
Emotion (Enchantment/Charm)
Range: 10 yards/level
Components: V, S
Duration Special
Casting Time: 4
Area of Effect: 20-foot cube
Saving Throw: Neg.
When this spell is cast, the wizard can create a single emotional reaction in the subject creatures. The following are typical:
1. Courage: This emotion causes the creatures affected to become berserk, fighting with a +1 bonus to the attack dice, causing +3 points of damage, and temporarily gaining 5 hit points. The recipients fight without shield, and regardless of life, never checking morale. This spell counters (and is countered by) fear.
2. Fear: The affected creatures flee in panic for 2d4 rounds. It counters (and is countered by) courage.
3. Friendship: The affected creatures react more positively (e.g., tolerance becomes goodwill). It counters (and is countered by) hate.
4. Happiness: This effect creates joy and of a feeling of complacent well-being, adding +4 to all reaction rolls and making attack unlikely unless the creatures are subject to extreme provocation. It counters (and is countered by) sadness.
5. Hate: The affected creatures react more negatively (e.g., tolerance becomes negative neutrality). It counters (and is countered by) friendship.
6. Hope: The effect of hope is to raise morale, saving throw rolls, attack rolls, and damage caused by +2. It counters (and is countered by) hopelessness.
7. Hopelessness: The affected creatures submit to the demands of any opponent: surrender, get out, etc. Otherwise, the creatures are 25% likely to do nothing in a round, and 25% likely to turn back or retreat. It counters (and is countered by) hope.
8. Sadness: This creates unhappiness and a tendency toward maudlin introspection. This emotion increases chances of being surprised by -1 and adds +1 to initiative rolls. It counters (and is countered by) happiness.
All creatures in the area at the instant the spell is cast are affected unless successful saving throws vs. spell are made, adjusted for Wisdom. The spell lasts as long as the wizard continues to concentrate on projecting the chosen emotion. Those who fail the saving throw against fear must roll a new saving throw if they return to the affected area.
The relevant portion of Combat, page 90:
Table 51: COMBAT MODIFIERS
Situation Attack Roll Modifier
Attacker on higher ground +1
Defender invisible -4
Defender off-balance +2
Defender sleeping or held Automatic*
Defender stunned or prone +4
Defender surprised +1
Missile fire, long range -5
Missile fire, medium range -2
Rear attack +2
*If the defender is attacked during the course of a normal melee, the attack automatically hits and causes normal damage. If no other fighting is going on (i.e., all others have been slain or driven off), the defender can be slain automatically.
Also could you please put the pnp description in your post in a spoiler tag. Its a lot to have to scroll through at the moment.
Those who like the lack of complaint make the same point I am making when they say that the tone of this forum is superior to, say, obsidian or blizzard. I agree but I think the two issues are tied together. On other boards fans complain, the complaints build momentum, reach a critical mass and eventually the devs respond. This doesn't happen here and I think that part of the reason it doesn't is because it is difficult for complaints to build momentum. I think the game would be better if this dynamic were allowed play out. I also think it would be better for Beamdog because the I *suspect* that some of the complainers who left went on to troll the review sites.
@Dee Can you / would you say if the issue of beta hotfixes have ever been discussed at Beamdog?
The people who got their threads locked after bashing Hexxat were not making constructive comments; they were (by and large) making destructive and reductive comments about her race and sexuality, which resulted in (and in some cases started with) flaming and other rule-breaking behavior. We have rules here for a reason, after all.
It may seem unbalanced because at the end of the day everyone here is a Baldur's Gate fan, even if they're not a Beamdog fan. But we do see the criticisms as well as the praise. In fact, in most cases I personally ignore the comments of praise (for anything except color choices on NPCs and class kits), because what's most likely to help us grow aren't the people saying we did a great job, but the people saying how we could have done better. If I have any complaints about the critics here it's that they sometimes word their criticism in a way that makes it harder to process in a constructive way. That's true of the internet in general though.
Given that we're all Baldur's Gate (or Infinity Engine for a broader scope) fans here, then isn't praise also just as good feedback as constructive criticism; Praise in this context being "you've improved on the original in a way that I like, it's now Better(tm)"
I've seen a lot of "constructive criticism" here that amounts to "you should have done it this way instead, because this is the way I like it", and I'll say that not all of that results in "better".. since better is subjective anyway.
TLDR: IMHO, both forms of feedback are as valuable as each other. It's all a matter of interpretation.
This is getting woefully off-topic, so I'll leave it with the following spoiler-button and then I recommend either PMing me or starting a new thread in Off Topic if you want to respond:
I'll give a (fictional) example. Say I release a game where the main character wears a purple suit and fights with a cane. For the sake of this example, let's say the character's name is Oscar, and he's based on the playwright Oscar Wilde, who also wore a purple suit and used a cane, though not for fighting.
Now, the game gets released, and 90% of players love Oscar. They think he's personable, it's easy to invest in his story, he controls really well, and (in this fictional world) everyone thinks purple suits are super stylish. So, awesome! I made a great game, right? Work done, end of day, collect the pay check? Not quite.
10% of players hate Oscar. Not only that; they take to the message boards to voice their displeasure, saying he "looks like a pansy", that he "could not be more stupid", that he "fights like a dumbass". At the bottom of this negative-feedback barrel is (among others like it) a suggestion to make Oscar fight with a sword because "canes are lame".
As the creator of the Oscar character I know why I gave Oscar a cane: it's intrinsic to the character, and replacing it with a sword would violate my goal of making Oscar Wilde a badass video game character. But I also can't ignore the 10% of players who think he's lame, and the suggestion of changing his weapon gives me the clue I need to figure out what's wrong: Oscar Wilde's fighting style isn't exciting. It's not that canes in general are lame, it's that the cane in this instance is poorly executed and needs work. I know that in my next game, Oscar II: Oscar Goes Wilde, I'll need to devote some resources to making sure that Oscar's fighting style is more satisfying to play.
That's a huge reduction of how negative feedback is still helpful, but the gist of it is: if someone is telling you something needs to be changed, and you disagree because the proposed change would undermine your goals as storyteller or designer, then you have to look deeper than the proposal into the psychology of where that proposal comes from. Even if you end up dismissing the comment as "This person is actually wrong and even the people who hate Oscar disagree with them", the exercise of processing it can be valuable, if you can distance yourself from it enough to not take it personally when the critic says "Oscar is terrible and that Pennyway guy who created him is also terrible."
If you're someone who plays a game and hates it, but you care about the developer and want to see future games improve, you owe it to the developer and to yourself to convey your feedback in such a way as to maximize its usefulness and minimize its discouragement. (That also holds true for any kind of creative endeavor, be it writing, film, television, visual art, theatre, dance, or music.)
Domination is a 5th level spell.
Let's do some roleplaying!
"Gee, things are so hopeless right now, I think I'll just lie down here and give up" "oh great, now that meanie is hitting me with their sword. just perfect. get it over with then, I just don't see how I can do anything to stop you, everything is so.. hopeless."
/endChannelingMarvin
So we agree on some matters and I'll mail you a cookie for engaging. Hope you like molasses.