All of this is true. Especially systemic interactivity it beyond anything that we have seen in an RPG before.
Its not though.
Arcanum had way more reactivity than BG3 in general. And in Witcher 1 your choices in Act 1 modified quests in Act 4.
In Fallout 2 low intelligence characters had their own dialogue with often different effects. Same goes for the vampire clan with mental issues in Bloodlines. And there choosing the monsterous looking clan also lead to having to play quite differently than other characters.
And that is before you consider that reactivity takes a nosedive in Act 3 and that most reactivity in BG3 is just replacing a skill check in a dialogue with 1 race/class based sentence before the generic dialogue resumes. But your choices at character creation does not affect the general gameplay at all. You do not have to (or can) play a drow different from a human because especially in act 3 it does not matter. The same way it doesn't matter if you are a local or an extraplanar invader.
So whats praiseworthy on BG3 here? That you can make choices at all?
Arcanum is a 24 y/o game.
VtM:B is a 20 y/o game.
Witcher 1 is a 17 y/o game.
Fallout 2 a 26 y/o game.
Game of that age didn't have the same scope as modern productions. In a modern AAA game, you can't just add a basic text answer, a low poly model with generic animations and call it a day. You need good voice acting, good mocap and good 3D models. Recent games have shied away from choice because costs have exponentially ballooned with production value. For a game company, committing to a feature that only a part of the player base will experience is basically losing tons of time and money for a small pay off. What is praiseworthy in BG3 is that it bring the old standard to the modern age, allowing a whole new generation of players to enjoy it.
Do CRPG need a big production value to begin with? No, but they definitely need it if you want more than a small niche to play your game in the year 2024.
