The reason why BG 1 and 2 simple plots worked was because you could easily be immersed and there was a strong sense of worldbuilding and verossimilitude supporting it, along with overall better writing.
When you remove that for BG3 and you reuse the same basic plot, it feels dull.
Plus, altering the biology of tadpoles and vampire spawns with the excuse of "god power" is an extremely cheap plot device (again, lack of verossimilitude). Throw some Absolute cult cliche, some cartoonish Rag and Devil and the story only goes downhill.
And I am not even accounting for the 20 years evolution in video-game writing or the difference in budget.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
I think they upped their game - I feel there was much more thought and care put into BG3 story, characters and writing then D:OS1&2 combined. It is a different studio, making a different game with different priorities. I suspect it is less about talented writers but how much imput they have - do they get to dictate content, world structure or do they have to tie up loose ends after other teams do their work.
Technologically, yes, but, narratively, no. BG3 is a little more serious than DOS2 in tone, but the writing is not that different. In many cases, I liked DOS 2 companions backstory better (or maybe they were more original at that time). Wyll and Astarion backstory are a variation of Lohse's and Astarion shares the same arrogance as Red Prince.
These characters literally have nothing in common. On this logic, you might as well try to match any character in the games to another.
Oh...they have. It is disguised (like BG3/DOS2 intros) but it is there.
