Maybe you find it odd because you presume I've played a Larian game previously. When I'm saying they where a company to watch it was from my experience playing Act 1 of BG3, not Divinity 2.
Even that I find odd. Forming an opinion about an entire company based off of a single Act of a single game...
Personally, I don't even form an opinion about a game itself until I've played the whole thing, let alone a company, which can have inconsistencies between titles making a single game not entirely representative of the company.
But I'm probably the odd one, given I didn't receive the standard whiplash most people faced with CDPR when Cyberpunk was released. I already knew about the companies strengths and weaknesses (Witcher 1-3 have great stories. But gameplay is not amazing, especially W1+2) and CP2077's flop didn't make me lose faith in the entire company (Especially with all the mitigating factors like the messy development cycle, the new genre and new setting)
Meaning that I know what to expect from Larian. Which is a great Act 1, an Act 2 that falls off towards the end and an Act 3 that phones it in. Hence why I'm overall sceptical of their next project which is "Larger in scope than BG3"
Originally Posted by KiraMira
Doing EA development is a dangerous game to play. Both for the devs and the players investing in the project.
Aye. But at the time, players often love it. Especially when their feedback gets addressed. Which is likely why Larian did it twice. People playing in the EA's often praise them for listening to feedback and making changes addressing such feedback.
Though the outcome seems to end up the same way. Too much time on what is in EA (Especially when said EA is being sold, so they have to make it good enough to justify the price) and not enough time on the overall game.
