Its very interesting to see the conflicting opinions that either the game has too much content or not enough content.
Additional content does require more development time, something a lot of people seem to miss is how much longer would they have wanted to wait for more content?
Oftentimes games that need to spend too long in development, or get delayed a lot end up not only not selling as well, but can even bankrupt the studio (See Ascaron Studios with Sacred 2 as an example).
Theres always room for additional content with expansions, but Larian seem to be a company thats not interested in releasing expansions, don't forget that both BG1 and 2 had expansions that not only added more content but also raised the level caps.
I'm still in act 2 so haven't yet reached the city, but one thing I've often seen is some complaints that act 2 and 3 are too small and not as big as act 1, which from what I have found is only true if you choose to skip a lot of the content and exploring the areas fully. It is very easy to miss a lot of content in this game if you don't explore everything, and a lot of players seem to make that error.
My concern is less that there is too much or too little content but that this cut just before release lowered the quality of the remaining cintent as there was not enough time to compensate for the less of an entire district and modify all quests and story for it. So what remains is a hastily cobbled together compromise with lots of cut corners.
And my question is why this cut happened this late in the first place. Or why Fafner which was seen in the last Panel from Hell got replaced? What prompted the decision to make this change this late?
