Again, I am not comparing the two. When I talk about BG, I mean BG2. It is, overall, a more refined and tighter designed game. I have many issues with BG1&2, especially after playing PoE, which while not perfect, did improve on the formula in couple, important to me aspects.
The difference, which matters to me between BG2 and D:OS2, that if something goes wrong in BG2 I would try the encounter again and try something different. I could retry the same encounter multipletimes, with the same party composition and attempt to solve it in multitude of ways. That's also the memory I have of D:OS1. Not so much with D:OS2.
Someone else elegantly summirised my issues with the game far eloquently then I could. And while I appreciate Larian's ability to represent mechanics in visual and intuitive way (IE, Kingmaker and PoEs have a problem of gameplay happening in textbox, rather then on the actual map), I am looking forward to systemic improvements that DnD system should bring... unless it all gets spoiled by Coop-centric design again, but that we will see once the game comes out.
sure you saccrifice hand crafted 2d visuals, but you gain the utility of beeing able to create content on the fly.
To me thats more important.
And to me it isn't, as I buy a game to play a good game, not to make one. Stuff, like NWN1 or Skyrim never engaged me, and all I saw were bad/mediocare games.
In other words, there is a benefit and tradeoff to using both systems, and both can have their place and application. Aurora Engine wasn't straight up better then Infinity Engine, though it did allow for doing things which were impossible previously. IE did better what I cared about, Aurora did better what you cared about. See, we agree, we just like different things.
