I think pretty much all of the issues you mention are valid (except maybe the mod manager system, maybe) and I do agree with you on several of them. Especially the stuff about the movement mechanic and the custom PC being more centralto the game. And I'd definitely love to see rewards for not using the tadpole. Ideally I think it would be a situation where the tadpole gives you a lot of immediate benefits, but later in the game we're rewarded for holding back and resisting. Typically I like to roleplay by using the tadpole once early on for something because my character doesn't really understand what they're feeling, but once they does, they never use it again. It seems heavily telegraphed that if we keep using the tadpole, we're going to pay a heavy price for it, so I look forward to seeing what that is.
It might comfort you to hear that difficulty settings are probably only not here now because it's early access and letting players tweak the difficulty a lot before the game is even done sounds like a recipe for confusing data. That being said, there's no promise that we'll get something as comprehensive as the pathfinder games, which I consider leaps and bounds ahead of literally any other crpg I've ever played, so definitely worth sounding off about that more to make sure Larian hears it. Also you actually can react harshly at least to Wyll making a pact with a devil, telling him that you'd never have made such a deal-I can't remember it word for word. And when you find out Astarion is a vampire, you can kill him then and there. Not sure how much harsher it can get. I genuinely can't recall what you can say to Shadowheart about being Sharran.
Thanks for this post. This is the kind of exchange that I've always hoped for.
Re. your last part here, what you say about Astarion is exactly what I find problematic. My choices seem to be either I embrace him or I kill him outright. What I would like is to be able to say something along the lines of: I find it utterly detestable that you're a vampire and that you feed on creatures - even non-humanoid ones. Your actions are uniformly evil. However, I'm going to tolerate you - for now - only because of the mutual situation we find ourselves in. But make no mistake. You give me the slightest of reasons to stake you, and I will. Or multiple such options between the two extremes.
Same thing for Wyll. I should be able to say something much harsher than just that I wouldn't have done what he did. I ought to be able to say something like: You did something evil here, and there is no possible excuse or justification for what you did.
And as for being a Sharran, I can only strongly recommend reading The Twilight War trilogy of FR novels to get a solid sense of what Sharrans are all about.
As someone who's still pretty unfamiliar with the original games, I'm curious what would you consider a meaningful connection. I haven't made it through the first game yet, though I've been spoiled on most of the major plot points.
This is an excellent question. And the short answer is: I don't know. I'm not one of Larian's presumably well-paid writers. It's their job and not mine to figure that out. I can only say this. For years prior to the announcement of BG3, in forum after forum, fans of the original games have speculated and argued very loudly about what the story could possibly be in a potential third BG game. And the general consensus always was that the Bhaalspawn saga was complete, and there was nothing further left to say or explore in that story. And for this reason, it did NOT make sense to create a third BG game. Well, Larian is the one that decided there WAS reason to create a third BG game. They pitched that idea to WotC. So I think it is eminently reasonable for me to assume they came up with some angle to the original Bhaalspawn story where it does make sense to write a new part to that story. The onus is on them to demonstrate that the Bhaalspawn saga is NOT yet complete, and their third game has something meaningful to add to that story.
