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.
I'm not certain I see much merit to this concern. Throughout the history of gaming, most games simply have not reinvented the wheel, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of quality. Beyond that, moving an entire genre forward is a very, very tall order, and "new" does not always equate to "fun". Making three games with the same engine is hardly stagnation, particularly when the third game involves changing the underlying rule set to the extent that the AP system of DOS1/2 is nowhere to be seen.
The hype train can't be avoided, most often leads to disappointment, and is essentially unstoppable, but for my own part I just want a D&D game made with the DOS engine. It allows for more interaction than any other CRPG engine I've seen, and captures far more of the feeling of playing a tabletop RPG as a result. Being able to cast grease on a group of enemies and have the ranger shoot down the bowl of embers hanging from the ceiling to set them alight is spot-on for how my wretched D&D group plays when I DM, and that level of environmental interaction presents a functionally endless number of options based on party composition, available items, prepared spells, and so on. I can't think of any other modern CRPG that provides that sort of "sandbox tactics" feel.
If all you're expecting is a genre-shaking change with each new game, you're setting yourself up for disappointment just as badly as the hype train passengers. Sometimes "the same, but different" is perfectly fine.
