Personally, I've decided I don't really like D&D rules (any edition, except maybe 4e due to my lack of exposure to it and it being very different from other editions, though I think my main complaint applies there as well) as much as the rule systems that are made specifically CRPGs (though some of them, particularly WRPG systems (as opposed to JRPG systems) have many of the same flaws). Specifically:
* Combat is based too much on accuracy. As you level up, it is your accuracy that improves, not your damage. When you get better armor, you become harder to hit, but the damage you take when you do get hit doesn't actually decrease.
* The system being accuracy-focused leads to many issues. For it to be meaningful, attacks have to miss quite often, and constantly missing can be quite frustrating.
* Furthermore, accuracy-focused systems don't scale well to high levels; you tend to get into the situation where attacks either almost never miss (in which case accuracy modifiers are useless), or they almost never hit (in which case attacks that are subject to attack rolls are useless, which is even worse than the previous situation). (The first is more common than the second; the one instance of the second I remember is in the JRPG Arc the Lad 2, where your normal attacks aren't going to hit later in the game.)
* Case in point: In D&D 3e, using the Epic Level Handbook rules, around level 4000 a 1% difference in level (that's 40 levels) can mean the difference between a 5% and a 95% hit rate, which is ridiculous for such a proportionately small level difference. (By contrast, in Disgaes, a level difference that small doesn't have much of an impact, and other factors like base stats and equipment matter more.)
* The lack of stat growth is another issue; your stats at character creation are effectively permanent, which is bad because it forces players to make that decision before they have the experience to make an informed decision.

The system used in the original Dragon Quest has none of these issues. (Final Fantasy 1 and 2, especially 2, did have some accuracy issues early on, however.)

[1] Yes, I would like to see damage adjust with level, too. I suppose this was what the vorpal weapons were "fixing", since a good attack (to a critical area, like the throat) should be able to cause a fatal injury, no matter how big & strong the opponent is.

I think the problem stems from the fact that the original game was designed for very low levels. The early releases with their level caps were really not meant to be a game-stopping problem, moreso, I believe, just a useful way to give some variety when playing with a group of characters that would top out at some level in the mid teens, at the most. When the system was adjusted to allow for epic levels (and level 4000 is just ludicrous, IMHO, I mean up to about 30 or so at the most) the underlying mechanics really start to creak. (Mostly, It gets too easy.)

I suppose it is unavoidable with people thinking more = better. Some of the best games I've had have been low level. (I think this is why the original Baldur's Gate still works, for instance, even considering the two epic sequels; I think the early levels are better balanced. This concurs with your observation about accuracy versus damage scaling with levels, too.)

[2] There should also be the option to lose stat ranks, too. I think this is why continuing plots with previously played characters start at low(er) levels in some sequels. Yes, this is probably a practical mechanic, but the underlying rationale seems solid (character has lapsed in their training so must re-engage to progress) as well as being useful.

I don't like having stats permanently decrease, as you're essentially punishing players for playing the game, unless the stat loss comes with increased growth potential (like class change systems in some games, or something like Disgaea's reincarnation mechanic).

One problem with low level games is that you don't get enough growth chances. To me, character growth is one of my favorite parts of RPGs, and having it only happen 6-8 times for a character in the entire game feels way too scarce for me. I much prefer higher level caps (like being able to reach level 40, which is common in JRPGs) with individual levels meaning less, or even SaGa-like growth that dispenses with levels entirely. (Or even something like Wizardry 8's hybrid system, where skills improve via use, but you still level up through XP, or something like the TES system, but without the rough edges.)

Dragon Quest is an example of a game that doesn't have these accuracy issues because the game doesn't make accuracy and evasion a major focus of the game mechanics. Specifically, in the original Dragon Quest:
* Hit chance depends only on the enemy being attacked. (The player can't dodge, but the player can't be critically hit, either, and critical chance is always the same, except that you can't crit the final boss.)
* Damage scales with attack power, which is just Strength + the weapon's attack, and Strength grows significantly as the game progresses; it starts at single digits and will end up in the upper double digits by end game.
* Armor works by increasing defense power (defense is AGI/2 + armor + shield), Defense power reduces the damage you take.
* There is a mechanic where, if your defense is high enough, enemy damage uses different rules, becoming more random (but generally quite small). This is sometimes referred to as "defense break"ing enemies. Aside from that, damage isn't too random. (This doesn't apply when you attack an enemy, though if the enemy's defense is really high (think Metal Slime), your attacks will randomly do either 0 or 1 damage, and there's a huge difference between the two when the enemy has only 3 HP.) (Note that the defense break mechanic, I believe, disappears in later games in the series.)

Anyway, this system scales much better than D&D based systems do, and starting in Dragon Quest 3, the system remains quite comfortable even around level 40, which is when the game will typically end.

Another tidbit that I just remembered: The games show your characters visually swinging even when they aren't making attacks, resulting combat being mis-represented.

Also, not being able to see the combat log after game over is another problem. How are we to learn from mistakes if we can't view the combat log to see what caused the death?

I could also mention effects like Entangle not going away at the end of combat, forcing needless waits.

Or, the sidequest in BG1 where, playing reasonably and making reasonable decisions, one ends up having to fight, with a level 1 party, an enemy that can cast Improved Invisibility. That spell is annoying even when you're able to counter it, but a level 1 party has no way to deal with an enemy that uses that spell. (There's also the problem that BG1 leaves you at level 1 for far too long.)

Developers - I wouldn't know. Most of them are just good peeps working hard trying to deliver their best.

Usually I despise the management, and I often dislike the directors. The real meat and bone of the prohects? hardly, even if I end up not liking the finished product.

Bethesda Game Studios; after they destroyed my favorite game series Fallout and they are destroying it even now!

For me it would be Telltale. I just don't like the type of games they made.

To be fair, Sonic is supposed to be SEGA's flagship franchise. I personally hooked into the series with Adventure dilogy but it looks that the series just went downhill from there.

Though the biggest beef I have is with Red Thread Games - that company was basically created by Ragnar Tornquist, who left Funcom to finally make Dreamfall: Chapters - the continuation of The Longest Journey franchise.

Tornquist is clearly a great writer - worlds of all the games he created for Funcom are incredibly cool and interesting. But RTG games (Chapters and Draugen) clearly lack in gameplay. Draugen is just a walking simulator basically. Also, after founding RTG Tornquist went full SJW mode, complaining that Norway has too many white men and advocating for Marxism (in Dreamfall: Chapters practically all main characters have some political speech at one point or another).

Both before and after Wolf Among Us?

Anyone who pushes an unreasonable amount of DLCs along with their games... I can mostly think of Paradox and Stardock here (mostly good games, but linked to disturbing milking practices), and most recently Techland.

I've considered devs which have a continued presence on GOG and will not speak of the known DRM archdevils like EA, Activision/Blizzard and modern-day Ubisoft.

One that comes to mind is Supergiant. Bastion was total disappointment with it's boring and shallow gameplay. Artistically it didn't clicked either, only thing I liked about it was music.
Transistor was better with more interesting mechanics and story but still nothing I could say blew me away.
Didn't try their later games as I'm not interested in that types of gameplay.

I can understand this, though blowing off the majestic narration that was given in Bastion might not earn you points.

Hmm. The problem with stats that adjust is they can become unhinged.
Strength increases? Well, technically one can keep increasing strength, but there are diminishing returns (bench-pressing three hours a day doesn't make much difference if you are already spending two hours) and absolute limits —— no lifting a car.
Dexterity? I'm not sure there is much beyond inculcating muscle-memory, IRL, that will improve dexterity much. So the explanation requires early levels be very novice, with correlated increases equating to training, or else suspension of disbelief suffers, IMHO.

I agree 40 levels is a nice amount, for a long game. The advantage to games that only cater to low-level characters is that there is a lot of scope to explore them. (YMMD)

As for increasing damage, I did some research after our last tête-a-tête (here, for those interested).

I think it's the 3e rules (maybe 3.5) that have a Weapons Master prestige class, which adds a progression in the damage dealt on top of the single-dimensional progression of accuracy in the DnD ruleset.
(This class is also available in e.g. Obsidian's The Sith Lords sequel to Bioware's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, too. It is a Jedi prestige class, so only the player character can opt for it.)
The epic levels of NwN, grants Superior Focus (gain 5% chance to hit=+1) and also a Ki damage feat, once per day, where damage dealt is equal to maximum dice total.

But first, to qualify for the prestige class and gain a Weapon of Choice, a character requires a Base Attack Bonus of +5, and:
*a minimum Dexterity of 13, to take the Whirlwind feat (allowing a full attack on all enemies within 5 feet)
* * which requires Spring Attack (which, in turn, requires both Dodge & Movement feats) as well as:
* * a minimum Intelligence of 13, to take the Expertise feat,
*at least 4 ranks in (the Fighter cross-class skill) Intimidate.

This will take until 8th level, and the WM also requires
*a Weapon Focus in a mêlée weapon, which grants 5% better chance to hit (+1 attack) in combat, and which will be the Weapon of Choice.
Weapon Focus & Superior Weapon Focus both grant 5% better chance to hit (+1 attack each) making 10% total for this WoC.
* The Improved Critical (for a longsword, which has a 10% chance of a critical strike, granting an improvement to 20%, so a roll of 17 or higher).

Further levels as a Weapons Master (fifth) increase the damage multiplier for the WoC, so a scythe (with damage multiplier of ×4) would now quintuple the damage.
And the threat range, again, by 10% at 7th level (Ki Critical=+2, icosohedrally, so a longsword with Improved Critical feat, vide ut infra, will succeed on a role of 15 or more).

Fighters gain the most feats of any class —— at the rate of one every other level —— so there are numerous other feats that complement these, like (Great) Cleave, which allows a free attack if the normal attack kills the opponent (and the fighter will keep attacking in the same round as long as each hit kills the opponent, it they have the Great Cleave feat, granting an extra attack per fatality). The Power Attack feat is a prerequisite for this, which needs a minimum Strength of 13.
The Weapon Specialization feat is for Fighters only. It yields greater damage each stroke (+2 damage).

If you add these to the Weapons Master bonus a longsword would gain 5% chance to hit (+1) and at 5th level the critical damage would be calculated by tripling the damage, rather than doubling it.

Now, there is no requirement for a WM to be a Fighter, but the trade-off for a Monk, for instance, is high.
Without Weapon Specialization, and because the Weapon Master must choose a mêlée weapon other than unarmed combat, there is little utility for the Monk.
For instance, for my Human Monk I reached the Weapon Master prestige class at level thirteen, whereas a Fighter only needs eight, and that merely to obtain rank 4 in cross-skill intimidate.
But, e.g., to begin Hoards of the Underdark, I sacrificed my fifteenth level abilities; most significant is the Quivering Palm special attack, once per day, with a saving throw of 20 (given my Monk had a Wisdom of sixteen). Insta-kill!

If the Monk could be a Weapon Master of unarmed combat, it would be worth it, but alas this isn't the case. Even considering the Monk gets Cleave for free at first level, by the twelfth and thirteen levels hand-to-hand damage is d12-plus-bonuses (strength and equipment) and allows all the special attacks (Flurry of Blows, Stun —— which is nerfed for other classes —— & Quivering Palm).

Obsidian obviously shared your opinion, since KotOR: The Sith Lords has six prestige classes for budding Jedi to choose from, and two of these, the Weapon Master and Marauder (Light- and Dark-sided, respectively) are designed to improve damage dealt (the passive Mêlée Damage feat) as well as reduce damage received.
See this discussion.

________
Back OT:

I just bought and installed Larian's Divinity Original Sin [Enhanced] [store page] and, thought I can see the value in it, I was underwhelmed. I also didn't like the sequel to Torchlight, thought I really like the original.

edit: added DOS hyperlink

EA past 2010. Before that, they were actually releasing good games. It started going downhill fast around the time of Dragon Age 2.

id Software, mostly because of what they changed Doom into.