Originally Posted by DiDiDi
I agree with OP. Honestly, if we wanted BG3 to be a Baldur's Gate game worthy of the name, that ship has sailed the moment Wizards decided to give the rights to Larian, a game company that is very clearly afraid to even PEEK out of their comfort zone. Now the best we can hope for is a good Larian RPG, but the fact they went for the name just as a cashgrab without respect for either the Infinity Engine games or D&D in general will keep stinging me quite a bit, even if BG3 turns out to be a good game. Getting strong Fallout 3/4 vibes here... Maybe we can hope for something like New Vegas, made by someone else, who actually likes/respects the originals?

To be fair, also BG2 had some of these issues:

(1) The introductory Irenicus dungeon was a mess of areas with crystals and Djinns, areas with prisoners, areas with Nymphs and forest, areas with clouds and other Djinns. It didn't make sense, it seemed as if they wanted to cram cool stuff into a small map.
(2) In Amn, you could literally walk into a random tavern, manipulate a picture on a wall and directly step into a Lich's tomb. With no corridors, rooms or maze like secret passages in between.
(3) The Underdark had a single map where Drow, Illithids, Duergar and Kuo Toa were crammed together, living almost next to each other.

-> all these issues are relatively minor in comparison, but they are also a bit sloppy. If you compare this to the undercity map of BG1 were you had a whole area of a destroyed city which basically only housed the final fight, there is a completely different design philosophy behind it.