Outside of Larian, Fromsoftware killed it with Elden Ring, and the last 5 -6 games they made. They have a solid process that results in works of genius.
What this hyperbole tells me is that you are angry about the state of BG3, and I don't blame you. it's frustrating to run into bugs, and incomplete stuff, and systems that are a bit broken surrounded by incredible VA, story, and character development.
However, everything wrong with Bg3 is ultimately fixable given time. You can't fix the core problems of Starfield with mods and Bethesda sure as shit isn't going to do it.
I haven't played Elden Ring, but Dark Souls and Bloodborne have been some of my favorite games. I love them. But here's the thing: They aren't actually all that ambitious. They're beautifully crafted setpieces, and while Elden Ring might have been their largest one to date, that was really what it remained. There's no need to worry about implementing the various options for completing a quest, like Larian does - the purview of that series is making interesting level design for their fights (and that, they are not even consistent at - the level design of later entries in the series was much criticised in comparison to DS1) and making them look good. They have a relatively uncomplicated niche that they specialize in and exploit well - and even THEN the games are far from bug-free on release! They have relatively small ambitions, gameplay wise, and a very conservative approach, and even with gigantic budgets EVEN THEY still have problems. While I love From for what they do, I doubt we'd be very satisfied if every company was as conservative as they were when it came to game making.
Also, let me be clear: I think BG3 has good characters, the VAs are great, the gameplay in the first act is fun and well-polished....but I don't think it really ever has "incredible" story or character development. I think Larian's *character* writing has improved over the years...although maybe I'm wrong about that. Perhaps it's simply the fact that the companions have great VAs in BG3 that adds to their personality and makes them seem better than the companions in DOS2. But either way, I consider Larian's writing to be mediocre at best to subpar, and nothing about BG3 actually changed that. And you say Larian "listens", well, that is certainly their image, but I think it's reasonable to question at this point: *do they actually*? Because I can tell you, this is not the first time they've been criticized for dropping the ball on the second half of a game. Or the second time. If they were listening, do you think they might stop making the same mistakes over and over again?
This isn't hyperbole; indeed what seems hyperbolic to me is declaring that Starfield is a "failure" less than a week after launch on the basis of little to no evidence. What it seems like to me is that people WANT Baldur's Gate 3 to represent something good and they WANT Starfield to represent something bad. So they're projecting hopes and praise onto BG3 that frankly, the game does not deserve. And I mean, don't get me wrong, because I do think the game deserves praise for what it pulled off, especially in the first half, but as far as I can see, the whole product...? It's not really anything genre-defining, or a challenge to the larger companies. It is broken enough that after one playthrough I have no desire to play it in its current state again. I'll probably put it down and see how patches and updates fix it. In the end, I'll probably end up relying on modders to fix some things. Imo BG3 actually compares *quite disfavorably* to games that came out 10-15 years ago, Dragon Age: Origins in particular. In its best moments, BG3 outshines that game, but DA:O is far more complete and consistent. I mean, to be frank, if I had sixty dollars and you said to me, "You have to, with no other knowledge, choose to spend your 60 dollars on a game made either by Larian or by Bethesda", I would choose Bethesda every time and it wouldn't even be close. They are simply just far more consistent, even though Larian tends to actually operate in the genre that I actively enjoy more. I actually have far more faith that whatever issues there are with Starfield will be fixed, than I have faith that Larian will fix some of the deep fundamental problems with BG3. I suspect that the end state of both games, based on previous experience, will be thus: The Bethesda game I could play through the whole way and enjoy unmodded, but I would want to use mods to make it more fun. The Larian game I would have grand fun with part of it, but finishing the game would be a chore that I wouldn't want to do without mods.
