so I consider simulation and storytelling to be different aspects of a game.
I think BG3 if far more simulationist then BG1&2 was - as if it has more systems that it wants players to interact with. It's just BG3 systems don't support the story/fantasy of BG3, while in BG1&2 I thought it was their main purpose. It's a bit like Rockstar builds their open worlds focusing on worldbuilding an immersion, while Ubisoft designs their around collectibles and activities. None of those are more or less open-wordly then others - just Rockstar makes their openworlds engaging through context, while Ubisoft through catharsis.
Edit:
Honestly, when I started writing the original post I wondered if BG3 belonged in neither category. Yahtzee (and myself) is mainly singleplayer focused, and I wonder if his catigorisation misses a lot of appeal that multiplayer focused games use. I really enjoyed my coop time in D:OS1 and I really don't know where I would put this experience. At the same time, there is also a question if it is the game that is really bringing the enjoyment. I think liking coffee, and "liking to have a cup of coffee and a chat with a friend" are rather two different things. That said many people do enjoy D:OS2 and BG3 in singleplayer so there is definitely something there.
It's also possible that I played to many finely crafted, cohesive games to not be able to compartmentalize game into chunks. I would think that we graduted in 90s from treating story and gameplay as two seperate entities. I find it difficult to get invested in the story, if a minute later I am doing something contrary to it. If we praise to high heaven games that marry their narrative and gameplay loop (or even better, tell their narrative through gameplay loop), then surely it is a fair criticism if in a game those two are at odds?
