You are talking from the point of view of a CRPG veteran, of course BG3 will feel shallow to you. This is an extreme stance when you consider that pretty much no one has played this genre before.
This genre has always had a strong following. It has been around since the EARLIEST days of computer gaming. In fact computer gaming owes a lot to RPGs, with early computer gamers being taken mostly from the strategy gaming and DnD communities. I understand your point of his perspective but to dismiss the perspective of the CORE community for RPGs is just wrong.
Originally Posted by snowram
At best the most in depth RPG most people have played is maybe Elden Ring, Skyrim or Witcher 3, games where you can cruise through by casually tapping two buttons and collect generic +2 damage gear. By comparaison, BG3 is very deep, from a gameplay standpoint and especially from a narrative one with its branching story.
Your premise is accurate, however it does NOT negate his point.
Originally Posted by snowram
To get back to the topic title, we can absolutely say that Larian games are "bad" for that fringe player base who takes pride in playing the most obtuse game possible. But at some point you have to realize that CRPG games doesn't have to be shackled by that arbitrary criteria, just like FPS became more appealing than Quake.
No one is saying the genre should be shackled, but is watering down a genre the best thing for it? Sure you might increase mass appeal but at the expense of your core community? What is wrong with focusing on a core community? Why do we feel every game needs to be for everyone? Why can we not have games with very specific targets instead of games with no real focus?
