The weird part is, Fane was actually written by a guest writer. Sometimes I wonder how the plot would have gone if he wasn't there to contextualize it.
There is one thing that actually really bothers me, though. Towards the start of the EA, it was said that Larian was only providing the evil companions at first to get feedback on them, basically making an assumption that they were going to be less popular options upon release. Gale was mentioned to be a last minute addition meaning he wasn't considered one of that group for a time, though I assume this is also mostly because not having a wizard party member in a DnD game (no, Wyll isn't a good enough substitute for the arcane caster role) would have been VERY awkward.
But now it's known that we're only getting 2-3 more party members, and one might have been scrapped. So as far as 'good' companions go, there's only Karlach and Minsc, since Helia might have gotten the axe. The whole thing about evil companions being tested first seems very dishonest when it looks like what actually happened was that the 'evil' companions were just the ones that were written and finished first.
Yes, that statement was Larian blowing smoke, in hopes that they could add more characters.
The scope of adding characters is huge!
I am just passing by because I really don't think feedback helps. If it did, then they would add one male and one female voiced hireling option, with limited dialog...no quests, just enough banter to make them feel like they are in the game and aware of the main quest.
I feel like all the criticism that Larian has received were about issues that were hard baked in at the launch of "beta". Most feedback has been moot...kinda like the Titanic heading for the Ice Berg.
No amount of feedback would give us Day/Night, 5e mechanics, change their choice of characters, ect. They would have had to plan for that by updating the engine first and plotting a straight line course (kinda like laying a foundation first, then building). With the characters, they would have had to get feedback, before writing.
All D&D PC games up till the early 2000s were cutting edge...AAA if you will. BG3 cannot hope to be considered anywhere close to that (while BG1 and 2 where un-disputably AAA).
BG3 will probably rank a solid B because they didn't do their homework, and the fact 5e fans and BG1 and 2 fans where not even the target audience (we are "niche").
The number one factor that held BG3 back was project management.
P.S. Hirelings!
