"The other thing that surprised me, in hindsight could’ve been predicted. We put in the evil and neutral NPC companions first, so there was a bit of backlash from people complaining that all the characters were so haughty and snarky, but it was really just those characters acting as their natural selves. I didn’t realise it would be such a thing, but in reality we just hadn’t put the good characters in yet. There’s a much wider variety, and hopefully, it’ll settle down in time, but it’s interesting the conclusions people draw when there’s only a small selection." by S. Vincke, if Techradar is to be believed.
That is a nice decisive answer concerning "the alignment" of Gale, Wyll and others. No one is truly good, for now.
Too bad the simple question is never being asked straight by journalists (or I've missed it):
"How exactly would you act on feedback provided by the players?
1) Say the nice words, but ultimately doing more of the same as before; 2) Actually considering changing some stuff many fans agree upon, but your team disagrees with (written examples of fan propositions - the boards are ripe with them)?"
Some real transparency, if it wouldn't hurt the business, would be really helpful for the spirit of this wonderful, well-learned, and interesting community.
