Liking a game is subjective, yes. Bugs are not. Bugs indicate the software is broken in some way. It was designed, or coded, to do X. If X isn't the result then the software has a failing somewhere. Your earlier post was talking about massive games having issues. Massive games involve a lot of bugs because they are released objectively broken.
Yes, it's fair to call it normal. Most software is objectively broken in some way. Games are frequently bugged and display unintended behavior under the right circumstances. Errors exist in the code. A lot of moving parts and great room for error. Writing this off as subjective is disingenuous. It's also fair to say mileage varies here. Some developers push out buggier software compared to others on a routine basis.
I'd point out, none of this had anything to do with the thread topic. Quite a bit of the posts do not. Comments on the game reception, bugs, what is or is not objective or subjective. It's all off topic.
The conversation is not focused on bugs. We're talking about the ''...lack of RPG mechanics and lack of choices..."
Let's go down analogy lane again:
1.) I order a hamburger and fries. The chef gives me a pizza with fries. This is "bug".
2.) I order a hamburger and fries. The chef gives me a hamburger with no fries. This is "bug".
3.) I order a hamburger and fries. The chef gives me a hamburger with potato chips. This is a "bug."
Complaints like these are things like: "The game crashes at this point." Or, "This perk isn't activating when it should, and it's doing the wrong damage." Or, "This quest is broken -- the NPC cannot be interacted with." This is all objectively verifiable.
The focal complaint in this thread and the arguments presented are different. Here, the analogy goes:
4.) I order a hamburger and fries. The chef gives me a cooked beef patty between two buns topped with lettuce, tomato, and mayo, and there's a side of shoestring fries. Well -- the burger is not thick enough! And the fries aren't curly fries! And there are no pickles! This isn't even really a burger!
Ahhh...nope. That's not something that needs to be answered. If that's really how disappointed someone is with the burger, they can return it to the kitchen. If they eat it anyway and still don't like it, then they'll need to go somewhere else that makes burgers the way they prefer.
And? I personally think the thread topic makes a valid point. As a concept many minor +/- bonuses spread all over progression, the specific perk construction, plethora of item clones in the gearing/itemization, etc. is a little uninspired. As a player I am not impressed. I do not look at such systems and think "these are the type of mechanics I like to see". Subjectively it's not a good concept.
More to the topic, if such a system is the best case scenario then I could see simplifying these systems. Reducing the quantity within them. Streamline the progression, gearing, itemization and various other areas. Place further resources into the story, characters and cinematic elements. Alternatively, retool this extra cost into further testing.
"Better" mechanics would be the ideal, yes. Subjectively better mechanics. But.... this isn't the topic. It's not the choice being posed. The topic is setting the status quo as the limit. The "best" mechanics we can hope are those provided in CP. Again, from a subjective viewpoint.
As a response to the take it or leave it comment.... You're correct. Nobody is forced to play the game. Nobody is forced to buy it either. Nor are they forced to buy the next game or the one after that. When you consider the implications here it should be clear why one player telling another to take it or leave it is self-defeating.
Exactly. I think people are simply having trouble with that reality. Yup, there are lots of negative reviews about the game for this or that reason. There are also lots of people that like the same, exact things other people are criticizing. Of course, CDPR listens to feedback and considers whether or not making changes that are in high demand can be done. Even if they can be done, though, it can simply cause too many issues in other areas of the game to implement. Other times, it's simply not in line with the design of the game.
Hence, thinking that one's own, subjective preferences, being extremely popular,
had better be humored
or else it's a sign that the devs are "making mistakes" or "not fulfilling their promises" is entirely based in the fallacy of foregone conclusion. That's not how it works. Here's how it works:
Devs make a game. People give feedback. Devs decide what to do next, then do it. People decide whether they want to buy the next thing or not. If so -- hope they enjoy it! If they have any feedback, return to the beginning of this paragraph. If they simply choose not purchase it, that's understandable! They'll be welcome back any time if they change their minds! Take care!
Everyone is always welcome to leave feedback. Everyone is free to enjoy a game or completely hate it. Anyone that thinks someone owes them something because they disliked the results can get a refund. That's the end of it. Anything else is overstepping. No one owes anyone anything else because they didn't like a game, film, book, etc.