1) That Larian bit off more than they could chew and the game is going to be front-heavy, with later acts having much less freedom, reactivity to class/race and be more railroady as a result.

2) That Bhaalspawn=Abdel Adrian is going to be canon in this game.

3) That the plot is going to be messy. See #1. I suspect Larian in going all in into borderline emergent gameplay with all the optional ways you can approach goals turns situations that would have been comparatively simple to map out in a more conventional rpg into kudzu for the writers and programmers. See that mess with the puzzle box Swen admitted they struggled with for a while. So far it looks like BG III is aiming for grandoise heights with chosen, gods, mindflayer invasions etc, but I'm not sold on the absolute as antagonists yet The goblins are fine I guess as far as Act I goblin lacky antagonists in D&D games go, but in EA 'choices' seemed almost half baked if you tried to side with the evil characters/factions: Kahga vs Tieflings, Druids vs Shadow Druids, Minthara vs Grove, Nere vs Gnomes etc. I'm afraid Larian is reaching for too grandoise goals in the scope of the game in regard to the setting (bigger does not always mean better) and simultaneously might not have the means to deliver

4) Larianisms rubbing off on the game in a bad way. Don't get me wrong, I love DOS2, but the Origin characters were a bad idea for this game IMO. I also don't care for the compromises to singleplayer gameplay made to facilitate the form of multiplayer they are going for, particularly with what seems to me like an emphasis on making the game appeal to streamers. I don't want to watch someone else play it, *I* want to play it. Other smaller aspects like the MMO-style quest reward pop-ups rub me the wrong way.

5) Nostalgia and it's status as the sequel to BG II. BG happened in 2nd edition. It's now 5th edtion. By Larian's own admission nostalgic name recognition was a big part in their choice of subject matter for a D&D game. How do you build a faithful sequel to a game like BG II that chronologically takes place more than a century later after the saga concluded? Apparently by undoing everything the player accomplished, since Bhaal is back. But that's not all. Not only has time advanced and seemingly washed away the legacy of the first two games, but the setting itself is fundamentally different, having undergone so many cataclysmic events, innumerable retcons, etc that I don't know how Larian can stitch the two together convincingly. Maybe for new players it's easy to look past, but for me 5tth edition means the Spellplague, the dissolution of the setting I loved, and I wonder is my nostalgia, which Larian has deliberately cultivated in creating this game, going to lead me into a bittersweet experience? It's easy to ignore the discrepancies in the middle of the wilderness with few npcs about, but when we reach the city?