I do agree with what some others are saying here, gameplay is more important in a game than the actual story. If you have a game with a great story but gameplay is horrible you'll have a crappy game and won't want to play it since every action you take in the game is bad. A game with great gameplay and no story is still a great game. A game with great gameplay with a crap story usually feels disappointing when you get through those important story points, but can still be enjoyable to do the mechanical actions which comprise the gameplay. As a personal example, the Souls series have nice lore but even if you don't fully understand the lore and don't care about the story, you'll still have a hell of a time. Then are even those where I straight up couldn't care less about the story or the edgy writing (like Hades as a more recent example) and I simply skip everything lore related just so I can enjoy the combat.
Of course you are not talking about ANY kind of game and are targeting RPGs in particular and in that case, even though I still think gameplay is more important, a good story should also be a top priority. I actually enjoyed the story of BG1 more than BG2 but I still feel that on either of them the core component to the experience is the actual gameplay. There is however one thing which I do find was EXTREMELY relevant for my enjoyment of the originals, and that was the companions. In my opinion, no other game ever managed to create companions for an RPG party as well as those in the original Baldur's Gates. Many games I have played and most characters have I forgotten but forever I shall remember the courageous and mighty Boo and his companion Minsc, Edwin Odesseiron the character I most grew to love for his absolute brilliance/sillyness, Korgan for that berserker dwarf homicidal psycho experience, Jan Jansen the storyteller and turnip connoisseur and many others... The writing for those characters, their party banter and reactions to the events as they developed were absolute perfection for me "You want us to fight a dragon?! You moronic fool! I'll not follow you into an idiotic death! Be eaten by the reptile, for all I care!".
This is not something I even remotely feel with BG3 companions. Gale is kind of ok, but just barely. The rest are way too forced. Also the fact that everyone in the game is apparently bi-sexual and wants to bang whichever race you happen to be after knowing you for a couple of hours... ugh
edit - actually forgot what I wanted to say in the first place: One thing I also noticed regarding your issue with game not acknowledging player actions is when you have Wyll in your party and you go face the goblins which are torturing the gnome. I finished the encounter having knocked down the goblin Wyll needed alive, proceeded to get a cutscene where Wyll talks to him, extracts the info he needs and then tells the player to finish him off. I opt for the dialog choice that results in the death of the goblin, dialog scene ends, and immediately another one starts where Wyll is mad at the player for killing the goblin before having a chance to question him...
As for your first paragraph I'll just say: vampire: bloodlines. the most broken game in history and somehow people still play it till this day. I think a synergy between gameplay and story is what makes great game. when elements of the story affects the gameplay and vice versa.
about Wyll and the goblins - great example. I have another one - if you kill the goblins after wyll specifically asks you not to kill them but he is not in the party, he completely ignores it and acts like everything is cool. this is exactly the types of issues I was referring to.
First off, excellent post OP. I very much agree.
This is it exactly for me too. In a ROLE-PLAYING game, story, characters, character development, and yes even lore are what matter. Mechanics are just a means to an end and nothing more. And I think that ultimately this is the fundamental divide among people reacting to BG3: those who care about BG3 from a (D&D 5e PnP) rules and mechanics standpoint, versus those who care about it from a story/characters/lore standpoint. Both of these things are necessary for an RPG to work. My point is about on which side of this divide the focus of the developer falls in creating the game. And because this is what WotC wanted for this particular game, Larian's focus is on the rules and mechanics side of things far more so than the other side of things. I am not that excited about BG3 precisely because I only really care about story, characters, and lore, and as things stand right now the game is rather weak in those areas. As far as mechanics are concerned I am firmly in the camp of Larian freely changing as much of the D&D 5e rules as they need to change to make the game a fun VIDEO game.
Totally with you on this one. Larian can do whatever they want with the combat. I think you told me you didn't play Dos 2, but as someone who did I can safely say they know what theyr'e doing on that regard.
Short answers:
Stray952 - I think some of this design philosophy is perfectly valid, just not for the reasons you stated. I think that sabotaging the narrative like I showed doesn't make more playthroughs appealing. In fact it's the opposite. when only one way leads to a coherent narrative, why play the others?
Seraphael - I addressed most of what you said. Specifically in chapters one and two. I played Baldur's Gate 2 before 1 and I played them as an adult. i don't think nostalgia is my problem
