So I have quite mixed feelings on this. If someone asked me about this a couple of months ago, I'd say I wouldn't trust Obsidian to do BG3 justice and that Larian is the best choice - after I've read the interviews and watched the team speak with such passion about this project. I actually did say this many times and argued with the nay-sayers.
But now that we've seen EA... Idk. It seems Larian has a very, VERY different idea about what BG is and what BG3 should be than I do. And I dare say I'm not the only one. (Obligatory disclaimer: no, I'm not calling for IE copy-paste.)
I have been all over looking at videos on YT in regards to this game, and all I see is positive comments (which is strange for YT). I go to gaming sites, positive comments. I go to Steam, positive. GOG....positive. It seems the most negative comments are on this forum. People said the same thing about the remake of Tomb Raider when Square Enix took over, and guess what, it was a great game. Personally I quite enjoy this game, there is some things that annoy me, but I will hold my judgement until the actual game comes out. I can tell you this, Larian is doing a better job than modern day Bioware would do.
On GoG BG3 is currently rated 3.9 and Solasta is rated 4.5. Positive doesn't mean acclaimed. If the current game was the final build this would mean a 7.8/10 score, which at least in my eyes is a disaster of biblical proportions considering it is a BG sequel.
I am talking reviews, not critic scores, you also forgot to mention that SOLASTA has like 8-10 reviews on GOG, just 2 pages. And BG3 has over 66 pages. What people are actually saying. You forgot to mention it has a very positive rating on Steam. Not sure where you get the "its looked upon badly on Steam" Tuco, only negative review I saw was yours. Not to mention, Steam BG3 has close to 33k reviews and SOLASTA has a little over 2500 lol.
