The open world comment I haven’t the faintest clue as to what you’re talking about. But the fact that there were more loading screens in the first 2 BG, was the limitations of the computers at the time, not because that’s what the game was about.
The disclaimer was there for a reason. lol.
Baldur's Gate 3 has changed to a more "open world" style design when compared to the previous instalments (by ditching the classic world map). Personally, I compare this to the games Expeditions: Viking or Pathfinder Kingmaker or even XCom: Enemy Unknown. These are modern games that still use a world map in a similar manner to Baldur's Gate, and I think the world map design has its own advantages.
Yes, the original Baldur's Gate was released at a time when an "open world" was not technically possible. But that doesn't mean that open worlds are better for every game.
Really my point is that it's fallacious to be appealing to popularity by saying:
"popular games don't have resting so no game should have resting" or
"open worlds are more popular so every game should be an open world"
It's equally fallacious to appeal to technology by saying:
"resting was technically necessary in PNP but it's not necessary in a video game so no video game should have resting" or
"open worlds weren't possible before, but they're possible now so every game should be an open world"
This kind of logic leads to the conclusion that every single game ends up being a clone of the most popular modern game (eg Assassins Creed).
Instead, it's important to make design decisions that best fit the niche/brand of the game you actually want to make.
Please bear in mind that this is a Baldur's Gate game. D&D is part of that brand, and the current version of that is D&D 5E. I just don't see how you can throw out everything from 5E and still call it a Baldur's Gate game.
