And they spend so many points being defensive about things, rather than talking about sore points; when questioned about a bit that many people didn't like or didn't find satisfying ,the first reaction from the interviewees is to explain why they "should" like it, 'because it's actually cool like that'... I dunno, the whole interview just ended up feeling pretty icky and disappointing to me.
I overall enjoyed the interview. Some worthwhile info - like that Emperor's was plan on a long.
I do agree that it feels a bit like they are deflecting the criticism. It's seems like they are explaining what they were going for - however, I don't think it is an issue of players misinterpreting or "not getting" what Larian has done. Being stuck between "Lawyer and an Accountant" might be an interesting concept, but the execution isn't great.
you are playing a route which is much more selfish and much more, again, afraid. You end up isolated.
Well, no, that's is precisely the issue I have with evil path that I have been mentioning since EA. Whenever you are benevilent, selfless or selfish good path is the one to go. I am yet to explore it beyond act1, but it very much seems to be alternative path for alternative paths sake - and the result is forgoing content is certainly a choice, just not a very compelling one. Larian's argument is that to create path equal to good path, they would have to create the same experience - but that is not true. There are more and less work intensive ways of achieving reactivity to actions (from completely original new content like Witcher2 to more systemic or sporadic reactions of Tim Cain or Obsidian). Making evil path unique is good, making it lesser - not so much, though at least in that regard BG3 stays true to its roots
.
