I think a lot of the 'negative' feedback is rather constructive criticism and at times very well observed, though granted there are a few posters here who are maybe too negative (I include myself in that). I hate to nitpick but 'the Box' debacle would suggest a certain level of incompetence on Larian's part.
I absolutely agree and it is as it should be, "
Constructive negative feedback" being expressed politely and to the point. The whole point of constructive feedback is to provide positive or negative opinion about a feature. But when negative feedback is provided in a way that is demeaning, passive-aggressive or outright negative towards the developers or other members on this forum, that creates a toxic vibe which puts off people. I understand people are extremely passionate about the game and want it to be the best game ever, but passion can also be quite toxic and often ends up achieving the opposite effect.
Also I have no clue what the Box debacle is
Whilst I can understand the praise around DOS2, fundamentally this is a totally different and a legendary IP at that, with a totally different rule set. In my humble opinion, BG3 should have had nothing to do with DOS2 whatsoever, other than sharing the same developer. By mixing a bit of both you end up with something that is trying to be all things to all people.
I merely mention DOS2 as an example that Larian is a team of competent developers that know how to make great games that many end up loving, even those who previously were turned off by the turn-based RPG genre. Personally I'm not looking for DOS2 in Baldur's Gate 3 and as someone who plays both extensively, both games are vastly different and only share some minor similarity. As far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer it to be as hardcore DnD as it can get.
Prior to Baldur's Gate 3, I had zero interest in turn-based games, despite playing countless of other real-time RPGs that were either based or inspired by DnD rulesets. I was someone who found the turn-based genre boring and something I never considered playing. But when I saw Baldur's Gate 3, I was amazed how great the game and the character customization looked. Despite it being turn-based I decided to try it out and enjoyed this newly found RPG experience. However I really wanted to play something finished, so I checked out Divinity Original Sin 2 from Larian as well. I was reluctant to try DOS2, because it was different, looked somewhat cartoony and seemed not as serious. But I got it, played it and it ended up as one of my favorite games of all time. 2 years later and I'm still playing it religiously and even got DOS1 because I can't get enough of it.
So if Larian managed to convert me from someone who absolutely disliked turn-based RPGs to someone who absolutely enjoys them and now finds them more interesting than real-time, then obviously they're doing something right. And for the record, I can only play Larian turn-based RPGs. I still absolutely hate other turn-based RPGs with boxed movement
I suppose my hypothetical question to you would be, how would you respond if a new developer made DOS:3 but did their own interpretation, removing some of the fundamental things that made it so loved and implementing their own ideas, so much so that it felt like a very different game? You are clearly a huge fan of DOS2 so I'm interested to hear what your likely response would be?
Naturally I would love for the story to continue and fantastic sequels to be made, but even if they don't or they're made different, it doesn't really matter to me as I will always have DOS2.
But to answer the question properly; from the moment it changes developers it stops being true Divinity Original Sin, because the visionaries who made the game and wrote the story are no longer there... so at that point it becomes fan-fiction to me and I'd be silly expecting to have a similar experience that I had with DOS2. So the real question then would be would I or could I enjoy it ? I am very simple when it comes to games. All it matters to me is whether the game is enjoyable as a whole or not, because games to me are a unique experience with a culmination of various different aspects blended into one. So yes I could even if it was different, but as long as the game is great and enjoyable and the story respects the prequels.
Witcher for example, although didn't change developers, did change directions throughout its games. I can play Witcher 1, 2, 3, and Thronebreaker without an issue and I enjoy all of these games, despite each and every one being quite different. Witcher 1 in particular is extremely different than its sequel Witcher 2.
So is Baldur's Gate 3 a true spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 as people would love it to be? No, and it never will be. It is different. But is this change bad or good? Well... I can only speak for myself. I freaking love this game to death ^^
