Subjective bias affect how anyone rates the game and that also includes
you.
Again, I never claimed I wasn't biased. I claimed I'm better at keeping it under control.
Not a big deal.
From the age of 11 to ~16 - I was subject to psychological torture from someone I loved and admired very much.
Now, that was not a very pleasant part of my life - but I eventually came out of it, and while the overall result is probably not that great, I did learn a few things.
It's sort of like having your heart broken over and over again - for years.
Eventually, you learn to suppress your emotions and while your mind is quick to realise that it's probably not the smartest choice to invest yourself in someone who's actively enjoying having that kind of power over you on an emotional level, it takes a long time for your emotions to follow and adapt.
Eventually, though, they did.
This has a few positive side-effects - and a few very bad ones.
One positive side effect is that I'm capable of setting aside my emotions in a variety of situations, where most people have a harder time with it.
It's especially easy during "trivial conflicts" - like a discussion or a debate.
Whether you believe it or not - I'm extremely good at not investing my emotions when I exchange with people I disagree with.
However, it doesn't mean I don't have those emotions and it doesn't mean I don't actually care. It just means they're not actively interfering when I exchange - and it means they're not very prominent for me when it comes to the bias factor, which is really just about emotional prejudice.
That's all it is, really.
For one, I can easily say, for all the talk about rationality and objectivity, you are very overlooking of many flaws with Bethesda games and quickly rush to their defense when anyone criticizes them, usually involving some perceived intended, "hidden agenda" on the other side.
That sounds like a bit of a fantasy.
But I don't think I've ever claimed that I don't have preferences or subjective tastes.
Once again, I'm just better at keeping my bias in check - and it's easier to be objective insofar as not letting my own personal preferences get in the way of seeing things from the other side of the table.
Such as their UI design. Or low quality voice acting. And animation quality and sound design, across the board. Or poor technical performance and stability. Or poorly structured, balanced, implemented progression system consisting only of adding mostly passive "perks/buffs" which player can max far too quickly. Or very weak, point A->B quest design, with very little narrative and gameplay complexity, from start to end. Or poor main story and worldbuilding. And very, very few ( if any ) well written npcs and dialogue. Or very little impactfull choices and consequences. Or very few locations in the world actually offering interesting, unique, non recycled content to discover. Or generally very weak gameplay, with almost non existent hit feedback ( due to outdated engine and physics), poor AI, encounter design or interesting boss battles/enemies.
Actually, I think I've been very open about most of those things. I agree with many of them.
Not all of them, though.
But that has nothing to do with objectivity or emotional prejudice. That would be subjective preferences. I've never claimed I don't have those.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with you about all aspects of all games, now does it?
And many, many other things I could mention here.
People are certainly not installing hundreds of mods, and waste awful lot of time trying to improve the game risking ( already shaky) game performance to fix issues they're only "pretending" they exist.
Again, I've been very open about using many mods for that particular reason.
I don't know why you have this fantasy of me thinking everything is great in Bethsoft games. I certainly don't think so.
I think they're extremely good in a few specific areas that I just happen to really enjoy - much more so than other aspects of other games.
That doesn't mean they're flawless.
Essentially, your struggle to accept that I'm not what you think I am comes down to your ego and your competitive nature. It's not unlike JDR - and you two are a little alike in that way.
You both have tremendous egos and you're both very competitive. That's why you will always try to "defend your team" and you will always try to "win".
But there's no victory here - because I'm not actually "the other team".
There's no match you can win. I can't be defeated - because I'm not competing.
I'm sorry, but there it is
CDPR games are certainly not without problems, but public and critic reception don't lie here: they are improving and becoming more ambitious with each game, usually expanding what they previously didn't do as well ( or at all) ( and imo, less wide, but much higher quality across the board next to Bethesda).
This trend is pretty obvious going from Witcher 1 to last expansion. So it's definitely within "possible" they could make the same "leap" here.
Well, I think they're improving in some areas - and less so in other areas.
I haven't played the latest expansions - but I think Witcher 2 is their best game overall.
I also think the first Witcher was better in certain ways than both Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. One way would be the alchemy - and I actually think progression was better in the first game - though it's pretty bad in all Witcher games.
My N1 concern here was how they'll handle itemization and gunplay but they definitely did better than I expected, espec on first attempt.
As I said, I think CDPR are crap when it comes to the finer points of gameplay.
But that would be for the things I care about.
Bethsoft are definitely crap in some of those ways - as well, just so you know that it's not a black and white thing for me.