For me the biggest areas would be to have meaningful choices that cover a reasonable range of choices, and then have real consequences following from those choices; meaningful reactivity from the world to my PC; my PC being central to the story; using the DU concept to provide a range of PC choices (while dropping the "origins" concept); a more balanced distribution of alignment personalities for my companion choices; no railroading; meaningful ways to avoid combat where the outcomes are not inferior to the outcomes from combat; the game being playable with a range of party sizes; and, ideally, a move away from DnD mechanics.
I'm gonna be totally honest, I totally don't get the last part. BG3 is probably the first game of this kind where *I'm not* worried that solving things peacefully will result in getting an inferior outcome. In fact, it's the opposite. I try to solve things as peacefully as I can in this run and it always feels rewarding. Have you really checked that part, because it really isn't true. At least it's not my experience and I also don't like to miss stuff.
Again, since I'm not playing the game, I'm going entirely by what poeple playing the game have said, and that is mostly people in this forum. And what I've seen be said is that avoiding combat generally (obviously not every single time) results in sub-optimal outcomes, especially from a "good" alignment POV. And furthermore, it also results in inferior/bad outcomes in later parts of the game, because generating a good path in that later situation necessitated having engaged in combat in some earlier situation. And then on top of all this there's the issue of whether one receives equivalent rewards in terms of XP and loot from avoiding combat versus engaging in it.
But if you have contrary experiences, by all means do present it, as I am always genuinely curious and interested in knowing the truth of what's in or not in the game.
