Yeah, it is more ambiguous without the part that says WoTC: "Hey Larian, we love what you did with DOS2 and we'd love you give our flahship title!" And sure, it is possible WoTC expected something completely unlike DOS2. But do you really believe that?
Not ambiguous, but could be used in both sides.
I don't see WoTC rejecting Larian if they said " We want to keep D/N cycle, open world and Rtwp".
My point is that it was up to Larian to decide.
Yes, it was up to Larian to decide what they wanted to propose to WoTC. But more importantly, it was up to WoTC to decide if they accepted that proposal. If WoTC wanted "D/N cycle, open world and Rtwp," it would be a really odd choice for them to go with Larian, since that isn't their thing. I'm sure WoTC isn't micromanaging the development of this game, but I am just as sure they knew and approved of what Larian is doing. Also, if their is something WoTC insisted on, it would be in the game. For example, we know WoTC told Larian they didn't want alignment to be rigid like it used to be. Are we to believe that is all WoTC demanded? Or that they demanded other elements that Larian either refused to accept, or worse, agreed to but chose to ignore anyway?
By and large, there is no reasonable argument to suggest that the game Larian is making is anything but what WoTC wanted BG3 to be. WoTC is the big cheese here. If they wanted something different, they'd have it.
