Why? With a DLC they can expand on weaker areas and introduce interesting advanced mechanics, whereas a sequel needs a lot more groundwork and can’t expand on existing story threads as easily without some repetition.
It’s such a good game that I’d prefer more of it to a sequel, at least right now. Make the sequel it’s own thing that’s not burdened by having to finish all the unfinished stories.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Sure, some of your money will probably always end up with bad people, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to prevent that. There are different kinds of bad, and those who try to hurt minorities have to be broadly pushed back against by broader society, or it will have negative effects on those who often already face undue hardships.
Because she’s actively using her money to make trans people’s lives worse, and she’s influencing people by spreading her hateful views. It absolutely doesn’t mean nothing - she’s literally lobbying with the money you gave her!
Really? I enjoy the lore very much, but it seems more than easy enough to ignore - most is told through collectibles, so you can just breeze through everything without reading pretty much anything.
Not every franchise needs to be deep
I kind of disagree - I like it when a lot of thought has been put into things. I’d rather have it available and be able to ignore it than not have it available at all.
Did somebody say “let’s ignore all problems good games have”?
If a game is good, and bugs are getting fixed, why shouldn’t the bugs be viewed more leniently than a non-good game with bugs that are not getting fixed? Why must we view these things as equivalent, when they are different in multiple dimensions?
I did say “they did so many things right”, with which I was referring to this objective measure of quality. There is a good reason this game is so universally beloved, and there are good reasons why Starfield isn’t.
If you want a random assortment of these “right things”:
Many, many choices that strongly impact your gameplay (Starfield has few interesting quests, most “choices” lead to the same outcomes)
Very interesting companions that have their own well-defined personalities and perspectives (Starfield/Bethesda companions just don’t have as many interesting things to say/as much cross-interaction)
Dialogues with interesting animations (Starfield/Bethesda dialogues are pretty static, looking at you, since… Oblivion I think?)
Interesting and detailed world design without constant repition and emptiness (Starfield is mostly empty, and mostly not unique)
An interesting story with a few twists (Starfield feels very generic Sci-Fi to me, but your mileage may vary)
Relatively few loading screens for a pretty big world (Starfield has constant loading screens)
Strong replayability due to many different options (Starfield has a few interesting NG+ ideas, but generally isn’t too interesting to repeat)
I think it’s less bias towards Larian, and more that they did so many things right with BG3, we can accept some bugs, as long as they are working on fixing them. It’s such a massive game with so many moving parts that some bugs are inevitable, but they don’t stop the rest of the game from being amazing.
Still very much pissed off about them announcing they’d remove their game from storefronts due to Unity pricing changes, which made people panic-buy the game before it’s no longer available, just to then clarify it as “just a joke”.
Deceptive marketing practices are always bad, even if you’re a small studio.
But he’s also president of one of the richest companies in the industry because he always said this.
And while your point is valid for smaller studios, it feels like it’s usually used by the big ones that do have the resources, but would rather give more money to investors.
The WiiU was it’s own console that actually had interesting integrations with the tablet. The Portal can’t do anything like that since there is no second screen.