I've played every incarnation of pen and paper D&D and the early Baldur's gate games, as well as DOS2. I also own a copy of Solasta. I've worked as a gaming conceptual artist for PC games for over 20 years.
In my opinion, BG III shouldn't be trying to copy the limitations of a PC game made in 1998 that was then designed to try and simulate another game designed to be played with pen and paper and people's imaginations. That is an idiotic idea.
BG III needs to stretch what is possible in 2020 with today's computer tech. It ought to foremostly attempt to bring the creativity, sense of awe, excitement and RPG elements of the truly imaginative strengths of D&D to the computer.
One can do this today much better than one could in 1998. The computer can now simulate things that were abstracted greatly in 1998, and it also does not need the abstraction found in D&D to portray real world physics that only happen "in your head" using very abstract simplified rules found in pen and paper.
Larian was chosen for this game because of their skills at portraying exciting, turn based combat that features a tactical, thinking approach and the use of strategy in a fantasy setting. They are quite good at this. Their earlier game has spells and physical combat, under a different ruleset than D&D. Upon moving to Baldur's Gate, they have changed to D&D's use of the game's races, classes, spells, and combat rules, as well the D&D setting.
What the heck else could anyone expect?
There is a huge difference in a game like Solasta, and BG III. Solasta is similar to a "ruleset simulator". It has little in the way of immersion, imagination, and any sort of soul. It parrot's D&D's systems without too much in the way of any creative impact.
BG III, in my opinion anyway, is instantly memorable. It is specific, creative and unlike anything I've played before.
It manages this with the trappings of the newest edition of D&D. It does not slavishly "stick in" the ruleset, because, like translating a book to a film, or a poem to a painting, there are different requirements in the two mediums.
A computer game in 2020 doesn't need the simplification found in the pen and paper rules when it comes to many things found in the actual world being simulated. A great part of what the pen and paper rules are written is to facilitate the ability of one very human dungeon master to manage his campaign and everyday occurances. Thus, there is a great deal of abstraction built into the rules to simplify the process.
When you play Solasta, (which has a quite wonderful and accurate D&D character creation system), the best part of the game is the player sheet. I don't feel invested in the characters in Solasta. No one feels as alive as anyone in BGIII. It feels like an abstracted game- where BGIII feels like a breathing and unpredictable world.
I understand the desire to "want to revisit" the games of old, when we were younger. We carry fond memories of the early RPGs we all played.
But, I think the complaints are quite misguided. Larian's vision is not complete and there are plenty, lots, tons of changes and additions begging to be made.
At it's core, I think, this is the finest, most intimate, splashy, immersive and exciting RPG based around Dungeons & Dragons ever.
We ought not condemn it's originality- it's approach if you will, if it works well and is fun as all get out.
For me, anyways, it is that and a lot more. It does not need to transport me to the limitations, the shortcuts, the abstractions of computers in the 1990s, nor do I need a very limiting number-fest of pen & paper graphs when I can see what is blowing up and causing me terror in living, noisy, GEForce RTX 2080 TI splendor.
I think this will be one of the great RPG's, upon completion.
