It is all very fascinating to read, but thats just a demagogy. Facts and numbers speak the opposite, some try to sell nostalgia again and again(Obsidian\Owlcat) without huge success, while others constantly advance, create a something new(Larian) and receiving success for this.
Is BG3 really still new on a mechanical level though? One of the biggest criticisms is how uncannily close many of the mechanics and the general gameplay loop is to DOS2 in its current state. Not to mention it literally is a sequel to one of the oldest cRPG series in existence.
I mean it’s basically trying to cash in on two different kinds of nostalgia at this point. And I don’t really see a fundamental difference in the end. What is BG3 actually advancing in the genre over DOS2, besides actually having a big enough budget to have highly detailed graphics and cutscenes in the end? What you and many others accuse the other developers of doing lack the introspection to notice that Larian has seemingly taken their first steps into the same complacent pattern.
What’s new is only new once is what I’m trying to say. And I don’t really think the devs or the fans should get complacent and believe that the same formulas will work twice, even transplanted into a different series. If it works out well, then it’s all good. But no one should act like nobody could have seen it coming if certain expectations fall short of even the most ardent supporters.
Overhyping yourself is dangerous. Especially this far out from release. I have even seen some of that from WotR itself in regards to inexplicable changes for the worse in the crusade system, and by all accounts even DOS2 had regressed in certain ways between EA and full release (in particular its handling of the Bless spell, exponential armor scaling, and the sudden explosion of necrofire everywhere as soon as you hit chapter 2).
Plus by all accounts, the Pathfinder series has been a success too.
