I've read a lot of criticisms of the game on this board and whilst I'm sympathetic to some there are two that repeatedly crop up that I'm confused about. They seem really blown out of proportion to me.
Firstly the complaint that Larian isn't using D&D RAW and creating house rules. I first played D&D 40 years ago and have played a lot of RPG's since then. The 80's were basically one long RPG session for me. With any system after the fist couple of sessions we always used house rules. That's various different groups. I've never met a group of role-players who didn't use house rules in their games. So why is this a bad thing for Larian to do? Maybe I'm just out of date and all the cool D&D5e kids play RAW now.
Secondly is all the complaints about BG3 just being DOS3. DOS was obviously Larian's way of making a D&D like game in the first place. Party-based, pseudo-medieval with story and narrative elements tied together by many combats. Basically D&D. The rule set might be slightly different, but that's par for the course when designing for a different medium and without a license for the base game. So yeah, it looks a bit like DOS. That's because DOS looks like D&D.
You know what, I can't agree more..At 1st when I was making criticism I was talking about how much the barrel mechanic and the logic was so flawed and how it breaks the combats in many ways. Then I realised the simple fact; don't use it, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to do so, what players are actually objecting is that other people being able to make use of it in their play through to beat the game. Which is none of your concern really, why ppl are even objecting for other players to have an other way of doing things. So yeah some of the criticism is just out of the window.
