I don't know if I'd call it Cyberpunk 2077 syndrome, although I definitely think Larian is very lucky that people haven't noticed what happened between early access and release because Baldur's Gate 3 got gutted.
Cyberpunk 2077 had the issues it did because it appears CDProjekt Red didn't know what kind of game they were making, spent too much time on art and ideas over actually implementing them, and the first thing they debuted (the quest with all the various paths and features) was basically an extremely 'pie in the sky' implementation of what they thought was possible to make. I think the issue with CP2077 was that they basically built the game we got only two years out from release, if I'm remembering some of the articles that came out from it.
Where Baldur's Gate 3 differs is that a lot of the content that is now missing, cut, altered, or stripped down was in the game and functioned as it should during Early Access. For whatever reason, it appears that very late in the process, Baldur's Gate 3 underwent a significant change in tone and plot, leading to a wholesale removal of pretty vast quantities of content, to the extent that it weakened core pillars of the game both in story (Daisy) and in features (the origins.) We don't know why Larian did this, and I'd suspect it was either an overreaction to audience feedback, reach exceeding grasp when it came to reactivity later in the game, or mechanical failure with the long rest system and reactivity tied to it.
Early Access is Early Access, sure. It's Larian's perogetive to make such sweeping changes if they want. But I don't think anyone counted on them changing everything, upending the plot that was obviously well along in production, changing the tone entirely, and removing a lot of the more interesting choices and consequences. It's especially odd given how much Larian talked up how many replays the game had an how much content players may never see -- I hate to say it but, as I've been beginning a second playthrough, if you went through the first one thoroughly, there's very little stuff you didn't see. And what you didn't see was probably telegraphed, such as siding with the goblins over the druids.
Why did Larian cut so much? We have no idea. It's especially odd because it appears to have happened so late in the process. Did Wizards of the Coast decide they didn't like certain things? Did the long rest system being just about as buggy as it was in early access mean that certain things that fired only in camp (such as Daisy) had to be curtailed? Notably, Raphael no longer finds you in camp, and instead abruptly shows up at various locations around the grove, for example. The Guardian is a much simpler character who basically establishes that you can trust them, they're good for you, and you can use powers -- this would result in a lot less variables to track than the more complex Daisy, but also meant the loss of a 'no powers' path. It appears that Daisy was the Absolute and possibly Orpheus -- altering this would be a massive problem. It's telling that a lot of the cut content appears to relate to things connected to Orpheus and the Absolute, such as the antagonists having more appearances and presence, because greater involvement from those two characters would obviously complicate every part of the story they're connected to.
For all the talk of tough choices and consequences, there are very few, if there's any at all. One I think illustrates it is Gale. His magic appetite used to be a real nuisance to deal with as he only wanted particular, powerful magic items. If you picked up the Necromancy tome, for example, he'd ask you if he could eat it. If he did not get three big items by a certain time, he'd go and sign a deal with Raphael. This is seemingly absent now. And to disguise it, Larian made it so that you can give Gale any three magic items. But if you observe the dialogue, you'll see that your character still grumbles about giving up something powerful.
We know Larian was very sensitive to audience feedback. The initial unique narration for each voice and origin character was cut and replaced by an all-in-one variant, despite there being thousands and thousands of lines already implemented in the game. If you see the videos on Youtube where the first narration was presented, it's clear that it had a lot of relevance to the origins system, giving the character you chose to play as a unique voice and perspective. These days, is there really much point to playing as Lae'zel? All you really get out of it is less Lae'zel.
I understand making slight changes in response to audience feedback. I don't understand ripping out pillars that are practically load-bearing to various elements. The first dream visitor, Daisy, had a very prominent role. The songs Down by the River and The Power obviously match to that character and whatever plot the story had when they were around. I Want to Live feels like a song for a story with more difficult choices and harder outcomes. Karlach's ending feels like it was made for that story.
I really think Larian should've stood by their original vision, whatever it was. You can't just change key elements so late in production and expect to have a stronger product. It's like they had a vision and they got spooked by particular feedback and we got a product that doesn't at all meet the potential of what was there. It's really hard to stress enough how much content and material they appeared to strip out so close to release. And for what?
