I see the problems with D:OS2, too, thats why I'm "on / off" vocal about the severe QoL issues the divinity engine has: shopping, inventory management, looting. All three of them are horribly implemented and require intense micromanagement which doesn't add anything to the game.
Shuffling inventories doesn't add anything to the game.
And the "endgame" of D:OS2 was a joke, I even agree with that - the last fight was among the easiest in the game, I finished D:OS2 4 or 5 times and even on the first attempt it was, mostly, a more "facerolling" experience than anything else, this didn't change with tactician dificulty level.
The worst part of it was the two puzzles, which were really only annoying and also not contributing anything meaningful.
So, there is that.
But - the spirit of what makes Larian game a Larian game is that rich world, the rich storytelling and characters, the ability to play WITH the environment and the 3D world.
And I see the greatest divergence here - the "Larian formula" is very friendly and compatible with modern expectations when it comes to a video game. Even EA BG3 is already a wonderful example of that, the world is full of chances, of things to exploit for tactical, but also stragetical, purposes, players really have agency here.
What the hardcore D&D cult people forget:
AI is not there yet to reinstate player agency after a series of failed story related dice rolls - surely you can go the "Solasta" route, where the story is linear and decisions don't matter eventually (which is a cheap implementation, a cop out, honestly speaking, I will say more about my impressions about Solasta a few sentences below), but it's, looking at an RPG as a whole, by far not as satisfying as what one can do in games which abide to that "Larian formula" (a term I just invented, but I think it describes D:OS2 and BG3 well).
So, regarding Solasta:
I don't see Solasta as a proper RPG game, quite frankly. To me it's more like "playing chess with D&D rules", or a "D&D 5e combat simulator", instead of a fully fleshed out story driven game. I don't care in the slightest what the story of Solasta is about, this died the very moment I read that "your decisions don't matter, there is only one path through the game anyway" for me, so I use it to get a kick of "yes, lets slay some baddies of irrelevant agency and origin with my custom 4 PC party", nothing else.
Am I harsh?
Yes.
But is that necessary?
I most certainly think so. The D&D people get all their races, lore, dice, stats, skills, spells, etc..., this needs to suffice, and I'm dead serious about that. The video game people with attachment to modern role playing, and this is the same crowd that D:OS2, with all it's apparent limitations and weakness, spoke to extensively, want that "super high end game master (or was it "dungeon master"?)" which the "Larian formula" provides.
That guy on the table that tells a AAA story (and yes, the stories I have seen so far ARE AAA material) and allows for sneaking into combat, abusing environmental circumstances, creative use of whats available in the location where a fight takes place.
Also, because I read this here as well:
No, the stories and origins are NOT the same as what we got in D:OS2. We will forever - FOREVER - have to live with tropes and archetypes, yes. Wyll and Ifan Ben Mezd share the same archetype, so do Astarion and Sebille (to some extent, the backstories are different enough in both cases, mind you), but there is only so much one can do within the confinements of "swords, shields, fireballs and healing spells" anyway.
It's time to accept that this is October 2021, not September 2000 (when BG2 was released).
