harmonea

Do you not know that actual news clips from actual news outfits get posted on youtube sometimes

People are clamoring around you in a huge chorus of it's fine just roll with it but frankly, I think your point of view is totally valid. While Larian did a great job making every path a valid way to the ending, you can really only ever lock yourself out of content with your choices.

Go too far down one of two branching paths? Hope you can pass a big fat skill check or two, or that one companion will bail. Hope you didn't like that character or want to see more of that content. (Oh, and if you do pass the skill checks, 10 minutes later the companion is like "ugh no it's fine you were right, forget I ever wanted to go that way even though I've been obsessed with it for the last 20 hours" in the name of railroading the character back in line.)

Get interested in the wrong quest too early? Hope you didn't want to finish the main side objective in that one area. No no, even though all the characters are still present, you don't get to finish it. Because we said so. Shoo along to the next place. Go. Get.

And here's hoping you don't get curious about the "evil" path - you lose multiple companions and a whole-ass cast of side characters that are meant to follow you through the game and gain one (1) bit of interesting new content to replace them. Is it still interesting? Absolutely, but it's a consolation prize compared to how much you lose.

It took me 3 playthroughs or so before I finally felt like I was on a save where I was having a good 80%+ of the intended experience. And yeah, you can replay it for what you missed, but not everyone has time for that, especially in a game this immense. I know I've started it up to make my fourth character about half a dozen times and Alt-F4ed during character creation as soon as I think about going through the parts I've thoroughly combed already.

BG3 is my GOTY by a long shot, but people should have more sympathy for this outlook. There are definitely right paths and wrong paths, and while they all lead to the end, the wrong paths have a lot less to look at and a healthy amount of rubbing your face in the fact that you did stuff in the wrong order ("Perhaps you could have...." ok thanks, narrator).

Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.

So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.

I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.

Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?

If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.

Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.

Come on now, you know the left panels would have said something about tax breaks for "job creators." You only wish they fumbled on their absurd message.

Idk man, I was just continuing the chain of references.

You'll be okay. We all have our pet peeves, and none of us can expect the world to abide by them.

No way. Why should OP change? He's not the one who sucks.

Mhm, that's one of the "very recent additions" I meant. The other being Memoria, but that's a sidequest.

Bit of a sensationalized headline, then. They're almost there, but not "entirely."

Article only mentions dungeons. Did they add it for story trials too? As far as I know that's only available for early 4-player trials and a couple of very recent additions. The Chrysalis, Steps of Faith, etc can still wipe a group of human players easily if their mechanics are ignored.

It's really not my problem that you viewed me pointing out 53 < 60 as "unloading."

And "normalizing" having a serious disorder is dangerous. This is not behavior that should be applauded. It dilutes the experience of those who do have it and saps the available resources. Again, not "unloading," just facts that can be verified with any professional in the field. None of this is coming from emotion.

Going to therapy is good. Absolutely, yes, 90% should go. At no point did I shame therapy, I just pointed out the numbers don't line up and it proves there is definitely self-diagnosis going on.

I'm aware. That was the point of me pointing out that you'd have to assume all 53% had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It's incredibly unrealistic. And yet 60% have a disorder? There is absolutely self-diagnosis happening.