*chuckle*
am pretty certain the first video o' a solo kill o' the adra dragon via path o' the damned were a rogue, so...
the problem insofar as s'posed weak poe classes were with a new system people failed to understand that a poe rogue were so not like rogues from d&d or pathfinder. greatest initial outrage during the beta for poe were related to the fighter, which just kinda stood in the middle o' combat and soaked up damage. everybody knows fighters do damage in combat. the poe paladin were having little in common with a bg2 paladin being more o' a support class. most crpgs has weak arcane spellcasters at low levels who then become world beaters mid-to-late game, but that weren't the case for poe as wizards started out middling powerful and kinda stayed at middle of the pack; effective but not overwhelming. if you wanted to play a poe barbarian, your most important attribute were intelligence? what? that can't be right. that doesn't feel right. etc.
one o' the obvious mistakes the poe developers made were only obvious after the fact: class nomenclature created false expectations. make a game which is meant to appeal to ie fans, then create poe classes with the same names as ie classes which have attributes and roles extreme different from ie norms ain't gonna work for many fans.
also, while poe2 addressed the feedback issue, poe combats were frenetic, confusing and often unsatisfactory. spell effects tended to be overwhelming particular when stacked so it were difficult to see what were happening during fights, and even if you had the game literal pause after every player or enemy action, it were difficult to decipher why a specific combat action were a success or a fail. were a party wipe the result o' rng or were it bad tactics/strategy? poe were a new system and so combat transparency shoulda' been a premium concern for developers. wasn't. note to developers: do not make your audience feel stoopid or impotent.
also, as a new ip with no voluminous print history to draw 'pon, the developers were gonna necessarily be offering... less. each monster in poe were new. oh sure, poe ogres were kinda like d&d ogres (but not. we got serious slobberknockered by the ogre druid in the endless paths third level... took more than one try to get past that battle,) but it weren't as if obsidian could just port d20 stats for ogres into their new system. everything in poe were needed having start from scratch. not surprising, the diversity o' spells and monsters and everything else were a bit limited compared to bg2 or even iwd. predictable, poe felt smaller than d&d games o' similar duration.
etc.
however, sarex complaints is exact what were the problem for obsidian, 'cause while am sure his issues is heartfelt, they is so utter vague and ambiguous there is nothing actionable for the developer. so sarex wanted poe to be more septic and less like rolex and more like... timex?
what?
as feedback the developers rare got anything more than sarex kinda complaints, or stuff such as we see from kp and shady. which is not a criticism o' sarex, kp or shady. fans don't need articulate exact why they prefer chocolate to vanilla. the non specific complaints o' poe is real and represent obsidian fails to satisfy their customers. even so, not swiss watch and "i can't quite articulate," criticisms is difficult to address.
'course for deadfire the developers did exact opposite o' what the funding response suggested were a likely outcome for deadfire. the fig campaign brought in buckets o' money, but there were far fewer people contributing money for deadfire than were the case o' poe. for deadfire the developers doubled-down on distancing from d20, seeming to choose an appeal to those people who already liked poe as 'posed to trying to grow the hardcore base they had built. fig funding results shoulda' been a huge warning sign for the developers but instead they spent far more money creating a game with necessarily more narrow appeal. doomed from the start.
poe was most certain not bg 2.5 or bg3. that were the game's biggest shortcoming. poe did combat different and classes different and it awarded xp different, which mighta' been ok, but fans not only believed they had been sold an ie game "spiritual successor," but the game had all the trappings and even the visuals o' the ie games while it felt to many as if the developers were unabashed crushing player expectations. there were no holy avenger or crom feyr in poe. min/max didn't have anywhere near the same payoff in poe as d&d or pathfinder, so subjective good builds didn't look much different from mediocre builds. there were a couple overpowered abilities and spells in poe, but the obsidian developers kept nerfing such stuff. the nerve. a not d20 approach were fine given the hardcore fanbase obsidian had cultivated, but they needed to tailor their expectations to the reality that as they got further from an idealized bg2 successor, their purchasers would shrink. fig funding showed there were plenty o' interest in obsidian's new ip, but management clear overestimated their capacity to grow purchasers by doubling down on what seemed to cheese off kp, shady, sarex and so many others.
is worth noting there is very few o' the hardcore poe fans, people who to this day continue to post on this board, contributing to this thread. obsidan curious didn't realize how with poe they had successful created a hardcore crpg fanbase which nevertheless had little overlap with people who wanted to play games such as kingmaker. obsidian spent far too much on deadfire.
HA! Good Fun!