Isn't this railroading?
I truly cannot understand how anyone who believes in what an RPG is supposed to be about can look at all of this and still consider BG3 to have good RPG storytelling and writing.
There definitely is some railroading, dialogue choices that are basically all implying that you're working together (although that can get walked back later), etc, some forced cutscenes even when you specifically say "yea, i'm out of here" (Act 3), but there's also an extreme amount of choice as well. You're able to simply end your game when you want with one choice, purposely choose to ignore an obvious "this isn't a good idea" moment and go ahead with a certain choice (the game warns you three times), etc. Oh, one more thing, the game basically forces you to use the tadpole for companion quests as well if you want to know what's up with them. There are moments where "they want you to see this memory" and the tadpole is obviously the medium through which you're able to share that, so using the tadpole in that way is considered just part of normal gameplay, and using the extra tadpoles is something more, etc.
Honestly, it's very similar to Cyberpunk 2077, there are certain plot points that the game simply needs to have, and so you're forced down that path to some degree.
I haven't finished the game completely yet, so maybe there is an ending where the person that didn't use the tadpole a single time is able to get a separate ending, but from where I see everything going, and Act 3 reveals, it's just not a thing. I mean, in a way, I get it. They didn't want to lock people out of a specific ending based on a single decisions to save SH in the tutorial. Can you imagine? "Uh, so I'm locked out of the real ending because I saved her?" Wrath of the Righteous has a secret ending that has stuff like that, it's basically impossible to find it without a guide. Maybe that sort of ending is here as well, but knowing Larian? It's not.
