The original Baldur's Gate games gave you choices at every turn. Here is a list of things you can implement to satisfy pretty much everyone, while improving the options of the original games.
[quote=Vaell]
World Interaction
In the original games, you could run off and explore 95% of the entire game world after the initial intro. In this game large chunks of the world are locked behind forced conversations or world events unless you know they are going to happen and actively work around them. This game feels like you are forcing plot down our throats at every turn, leading to much of the resistance you are now getting from your player base. If we want to explore the whole world before engaging in plot, or wander into a cave full of CR8 mobs at level 2 that should be allowed without having to know about a forced conversation or cut scene and metagaming our way around it. Plot should not be gating most of the world from us. I don't want to see the "chapters" of the world we can no longer go back to like in divinity either. Let us explore the whole world from the start instead of locking out large chunks of it as we progress. If people want to rush through plot that is fine, but it shouldn't be placed in such a way that plot is necessary to explore the world.
Didn't the speedrunners already proved that you can do this in BG3 by completing the EA in 7 minutes? While there are certain set-pieces that will drag you into dialogue if you approach from the front, there are plenty of side paths that, with a little bit of stealth, will let you progress to the next area.
In terms of returning to areas, I too hope they will leave previous areas opened. The assumption that previous areas will become close stems from DOS, which isn't an unfair assumption until they've said otherwise.
The point here is that you need to know this ahead of time to avoid it. This is called metagaming. My point is the original baldurs gate rarely did this to you. You can explore 90% of the world without ever touching plot naturally instead of having to actively sneak around it. But it was also there in your journal telling you where to go if you chose to listen. The way the story is currently lined up is done in exactly the opposite way of the original.
I don't think the meta-gaming argument works since BG3 does a great job of giving you in-game warnings whenever you are about to come into "set-pieces". If you're roleplaying an avoidant character (i.e. a sneaky rogue), you're constantly given heads up to avoid things without the need for metagaming.
For example:
1) The Grove Entrance Battle - the game tells you there is shouting up ahead. Most people investigate because they are curious (NPCs encourage it), but there is no need for your character to head that way, especially if they are paranoid avoidant. You can skip the entire Grove area if your curiosity takes you elsewhere.
2) The Blighted Village - there is a perception check (which tells you an ambush is up ahead) and a band of dead adventurers warning you that the frontal entrance is dangerous. The intersection leading into the village have multiple paths, and the cutscene does not trigger until you're firmly pass the gate. Heading either North or South gives you options to continue going West.
Is your issue that there aren't enough open areas free of encounter? While I personally have complaints about how close certain things feel from a world-building perspective (Goblin Camp, Druid Grove, and a Rest-stop Inn all right beside each others?), I don't think the game is at all a railroad. The level-design clearly does direct you to each event because they want you to see the content, but they never force you.
Lastly, I don't think the statement "You can explore 90% of the world without ever touching plot naturally" is a fair criticism. It's a request I can agree with, but we can't assume it won't be there in the game.
90% of the BG3 world simply isn't there right now. We don't know what we're allowed to explore or not at this point. What we have right now is the equivalent of maybe Irenicus' dungeon + Waukeen's Promenade available if we're thinking of BG2. Even accounting for that, if you currently decide that heading to Baldur's Gate is an important goal in BG3, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from doing so in the EA. No meta-gaming required.
The plot-hook / main motivation in BG3 actually does a great job of encouraging you to explore while driving you forward (which a lot of RPGs have trouble on).
If anything, BG3 only feels linear because the game does too good of a job tying in the main motivation with side quests. The Grove, Auntie Ethel, The Goblin Camps - they are all basically side quests that are tightly woven into the main plot.
You don't have a direct solution to the tadpole issue, so your only goal is to explore and meet powerful people who might be able to help. If you don't do that, you think you'll die. All the sidequests take this into account. Get in the Grove to see Nettie. Deal with the Goblins to find Halsin. Explore the Swamp to talk to Auntie Ethel. Etc.
Compare that to BG2. You're exploring to make money to get to Spellhold, because you want to save Imoen - whom the game assumes you care about. You have an excuse to explore, but once you have the 20k, it becomes tougher to justify narratively (BG2 does do a good job of interlinking Chapter 2 and 6 to help resolve that). Speaking of player freedom, in BG2, you are FORCED to work with 1 of 2 factions to progress to Spellhold (there is no I hate you both, I'll go on my own). You try to betray and fight them, an invincible assassin/vampire appears and just one-shots you.
This is coming from someone who loves BG2 and played the game to death.
