Just to clarify, I asked you about a 100% finished game because you simply mentioned it as if it was something that actually exists, not because I think you imply it should be reached.
So the way I read what you said is that whether a game is finished completely hinges on whether it is done well enough or not.
But I would say that this is not the case at all. What you say determines whether the game is good or not, not whether it's finished or not.
The things we all gripe with have less to do with the game being finished, and more to do with it's quality. It makes for a bad or flawed game, not necessarily an unfinished one.
Bannerlord has a beginning, a middle and an end. They are all there, they exist. But the end game is simply done badly. It's not unfinished. It's just not that good.
Being unfinished would mean that there's still development they intend to do to significantly flesh it out and bring it to a good state, but honestly, I don't think that's the case here. I think TW is more or less happy with the gameplay loops, and any changes they will make going forward will be small ones that will not fundamentally change the end game. They might improve it somewhat, but I think the broad strokes are already finished, even if they do not meet out expectations at all.
That's the way I see this.
Naturally, that doesn't mean I won't reply. You, of all people, should know that. Peddling a narrative of "aggression furthers interaction" is also questionable at best.
