[...] For me, that is exactly what is wrong with D:OS2 (and also with BG3), in that it merges a lot of things into the game I don't at all consider to be a part of what makes a cRPG a cRPG, while also diluting a lot of things that are core to a game being a cRPG.
[...]
It is exactly the same thing Bioware did by moving away from true cRPGs to making games like Dragon Age, which also had cross-appeal between cRPG fans and non-cRPG fans.
The D:OS games and BG3 have a lot more in common with Bioware's DA games than many in this forum will be willing to admit to, but that's the truth of it. Being isometric isn't what magically makes your game a cRPG. Both D:OS2 and BG3 are NON-cRPGs that are trying to pretend to be cRPGs, and that's what ultimately really irks me. I assign a lot of value to honesty, even when that honest reality doesn't line up with my own preferences.
Huh. How do you define a cRPG? What makes BG1&2, P:Km, and PoE cRPGs but not DAO or DOSII? Can you give some example of core things that cRPGs have, or what things DOSII/etc add that make them not cRPGs?
Also, then what genre would you classify DOSII and BG3 as? They're clearly not ARPGs...do you think they need an entirely new name to describe [whatever core aspects you attribute to them]? Maybe something like Tactical and/or Adventure RPGs...
To your second question first, yes maybe tactical RPGs. But I would just settle for calling them RPGs with no qualifier, which is what I do even with the so-called ARPGs. I just only differentiate between cRPGs and then RPGs generally, with cRPG being a sub-genre of RPG (the only one).
As for my list of core qualities of a cRPG: deep and rich main story questline as well as secondary quests; a lore-heavy and dynamic world/setting; nonlinear world exploration; branching, and possibly mutually-exclusive dialogue; deep characters and strong character development (for the PC as well as any companions and even key NPCs); wide range of character creation and customization options, especially for the PC; meaningful leveling up options; meaningful choices with reasonable and relevant consequences including mutually-exclusive options and outcomes; at least some gameplay subsystems such as stronghold-building or crafting and the like. There may be a few other criteria that I'm not thinking of right now off the top of my head. So this list is not entirely exhaustive.
DA:O was a strange game in terms of my ability to quite classify it, because it was Bioware's transition game from making cRPGs to making non-cRPG RPGs.
I would also add that it is not just Bioware and Larian that have moved on from making true cRPGs. Both Obsidian and inXile also now appear to have done so with their future games (Avowed, and inXile's unannounced AAA RPG). True cRPGs are now being made only by a handful of small indie studios (although Obsidian's Pentiment may still be a true cRPG; I haven't investigated it much). This is why you will see in my posts in other threads in this forum that I have consistently argued that neither D:OS2 nor BG3 should be compared with games like PoE, Pathfinder, or Solasta, but rather with games like what Bioware and CDPR have been making recently. That's the correct and proper comparison, in my opinion.
