The 5/22 thing was in reference to ME3. Of course BG3's scenes are shorter, but we're still often in "passive" mode. My argument was that it should have a good reason for this. A good reason would be that they had enough mastery of cinema to back up the "film" parts. I don't think "other games do it" is a good reason, because other games also don't; or "it has to appeal to a larger market" either, because that's an argument for accountants, not players, and games can do well without cutscenes anyway.
BG1 sold over a million, as did D:OS2. BG2 sold 2 million+. The market's big enough to make arguments about sales more about greed than necessity.
I talk about animations improving in the video, tho just as a throwaway really so it's easily missed. It's hard to say what Larian will or will not change really because they won't tell us. My biggest criticism for them is the way they handle EA, to be honest, because they would get much better feedback if they communicated. D:OS2 was a mess when it was released, and still kind of is, because of an Act 1-only EA, lack of communication and waiting til release to change systems (like initiative). Most things they just didn't act on, and a lot of those return with BG3 (UI, bartering, chain-system, origin > custom, fire everywhere). I'm less optimistic, sadly, but happy to be proved wrong.
I definitely disagree with the writing being good on this, and there's a lot more to that than characters. Pacing/ plot design, for instance, or the whole "evil path" and interpretation of evil in general. Although I'm not saying it needs to be thrown out, because it's too late for that, but if we're noticing it, it's fair to say it needs work. I would be satisfied with good enough at this point, although obviously it's a shame to keep lowering standards for big budget projects.
