Yes, absolutely. BG3 aimes not only for wide appeal (which will always lead to dilution of focus in order to appease as many demographics as possible) but it also aims for conflicting ideas: single vs. Coop, authored, high production value content vs. Emergent systems and more, choice heavy game vs. Making everything available to everyone. There are couple good games in there, maiming each other fighting for controls.
I started act3, and to me BG3 biggest failure is not living up to its own goals and promises. Act1 promises a lot - it promises density of content, reactivity, complexity of quests and multiple solutions, rewarding applications of niche skills (speak with animal/dead). That stuff is mostly gone in act2. A much more standard D:OS2 experience. I hear things get weaker in act3, but I haven’t seen much, beside uneven framerate.
The issue I have, is that act1 doesn’t stand as a good, contained experience - Elden Ring was too big for its own good as well, but weak end game content, can’t quite experience fantastic 60-80h I had with it before it started to unravel. BG3 act1 is all promises though “look how much content and reactivity our companions have this time around, look how many systems we build for you to use: speak with animal/dead non-lethal, stealth, steal - all offer unique ways to solve every encounter, your every decisions can impact how powerful your tadpole is and will have consequences, you can reach Moonrise through mountain pass, or bypass the death fog through underdark CHOICE!”. Not surprising they can deliver, but it feels like a lot of stuff was build that isn’t utilised properly. I think there is a lot of inefficiency and excess in BG3 that ultimately doesn’t contribute much to final game.
But as someone pointed out BG3 is a smashing success - critically and commercially. And I think it is more than justified as long as you don’t look past act1. And I think most won’t.
