The issue is doing DLC for an open world game is hard. The way it’s been done in the past is broadly one of the following:

• add a new zone that doesn’t interact with the rest of the world
• add a new location, a few new maps that link to the original zone and some quests The issue is that that’s not enough to necessarily make an entirely new playthrough worthwhile, but also an existing near-end save might trivialise loot and content.

The solution is so some combination of the following:

• Make the content spread throughout the world
• Balance the game so that new gear are choices rather than straight upgrades.
• Add new systems to engage with.

Fundamentally Bethesda as discounted the latter. It’s done with classes, it’s not added races, or new systems or new skills in years. They can’t add content throughout, that would require creating the space for the content to exist in ahead of time.

Not that it can’t be done, but that they don’t have the future awareness to make room for it.

The unemotive faces is the real issue. Facial animations from bioware seem really bad.

Except the complaints about Veilguard are about the pixar-like characters with very little expressiveness. So even if that were what he meant he’s still actually not addressing the real issues

Making it so holding a fire source sets any surface you stand on on fire is so cursed tactically.

You’d think the sensible business decision would be to see an under supplied gap in the market and fill it, but God-forbid they do something sensible.

Skyrim lead designer Bruce Nesmith explained that Larian’s success is an “exception” to the last decade of gaming trends, but one that shows a shift in desire from gamers.

There’s been no shift, we’ve just been ignored and under-served for around two decades. But, sure, keep ignoring us.

There’s not much of an interview here, but there’s also nothing to really tell that they learned anything from this experience. They still have this air about their words like they did nothing wrong, even when they’re admitting that it wasn’t just technical issues.

Self-fund or kick-start and hope (and beg) some YTer plays their game and it explodes.

Tell that to everyone playing fortnite or other shooters on their phones.

Looks insane and disgusting to me, but to each their own I guess.

Couch co-op can be difficult, because it often means having to run the game twice on the same machine. The devs of Windrush also found that it made it harder for players to keep track of where they were (with a single player they can fix the center of the screen on the player)

That said, yes, more couch co-op please. I’d settle for cheaper second copies.

Something being popular doesn’t mean it’s good just as something being unpopular doesn’t mean it’s bad. I’m not saying it’s not better than their other titles, but there’s nothing specifically remarkable about the BG IP that made it better than if it were in any other setting.

Their next game will be better, 5e held them back as much as its recognition boosted it’s popularity. WotC will spend the next decade chasing the success of BG3 while these guys rinse and repeat as they always have.

There’s no reason to believe there was anything special about BG3 other than any WotC funding and lore.

Weird coming from the company that deliberately stop selling to 170 countries for unknown reasons.

My tired brain read “Russian”. My bad

Being judgemental of and prejudice against people based on where they’re born. I’m sure there’s a word for that…

Not really a fair comparison when The Order 1886 dev had delusions of grandeur about his vision. About 30 fps, 1080p, repeatedly removing player agency, the QTEs everywhere, the letterbox fov that made people ill playing it, the terrible AI. The game being short was just the least of the games problems. As I recall people were done with the game even before 5 hours in.