First of all, why would you start your points with a poorly disguised antagonism regarding another user's way of thinking and behavior?
I didn't. I made an overt comment about the other poster's behaviour and the pointlessness of rising to it. I disguised nothing.
All I see as a bywalker is a logical thought, that a lot of stories follow same patterns to engage the audience. Why would you deny that?
I didn't.
What is fundamentally wrong with improving on an already strong base of the original ideas?
Nothing, unless what you're trying to make is a new story. Which they are.
What exactly don't you like about the current one?
The extremely long laundry list of near-identical elements copied wholesale like a full-body transplant across to BG3 from D:os2, with barely a coat of paint slapped on them.
And how subjective is it?
It's not; the list is one of purely objective, academic facts about the two games' intro sequences.
==
What do you expect from the level design personally?
Many things, none of which are at all relevant to this particular element of the discussion.
Your post sums to:
"I think it's not bad that Bg3 and D:OS2 have the same intro, why do you think it is?"
I think it's bad because they're the same, to a magnitude that is highly visible and very off-putting, and the number and degree of recycled elements is appalling. Taking inspiration to use similar elements in your game, from other popular tropes or effective plot devices is one thing, but when you lift the majority of the elements of the intro of your previous game, and transplant them wholesale with barley a coat of paint into your new game, in a completely different IP, and treat that as your base, that's lazy, unengaging and dishonest design. I'm not satisfied with being fed a microwaved, lightly-reseasoned bowl of yester-year's gruel as the entrée to what is supposed to be a new experience. If you ARE okay with that, that's fine for you; I'm not.
