It's kind of interesting reading through this thread, because I see a lot of people going through the same process I did with Larian, years ago.
For me, the conclusion I reached is that Larian is a studio with humongous weaknesses and glaring flaws, many of which, after multiple games, they have not managed to improve on:
1. Does Larian make good combat systems? Debatable. Part of Larian's saving grace, to me, is that they have really fun combat....for a portion of the game. In the early to mid-game, the systems are well-balanced and fights are fun. By the end, in almost every Larian game, combat degrades into being trivial. And yes, almost all RPGs have the problem where combat becomes easier by the endgame, but part of the problem with Larian's very deliberate turn-based format is that the ease of the combat becomes a much bigger problem because all combat takes much longer. (Easy combat in a RTWP system does not hurt the game nearly as much as RTWP in a turn-based combat system.)
I give Larian huge props for having combat that simply feels very fun in that early game. But that's not to say their combat systems are the best in the early game either. People have already mentioned DOS2's armor system. It is fun DESPITE the glaring flaws in the combat.
I will be honest - when I first heard that Larian was making BG3, I wasn't very enthusiastic about it. And I was even LESS enthusiastic when I saw their first cutscene trailer (but I'll talk more about that in a minute.) But I had hoped that Dungeons and Dragon's system - which, to blunt, is far superior to any combat system Larian has ever natively come up with - would actually serve to cover their weakness with combat systems becoming degraded over the course of the game. But it didn't, because Larian, entirely of their own accord, unbalanced the DnD system by introducing wildly unbalanced homebrew rules and handing out artifact-level magical items like candy. It is perhaps one of the most frustrating things I've seen them do in any of their games. I'm not saying that they had to follow the DnD 5e rules exactly, and I'm even willing to overlook some unbalanced stuff in the name of fun (like the pushing.) But a huge reason why combat becomes so trivial, a huge reason why the game begins relying on combat gimmicks in combat as early as act 2, is because Larian very thoughtlessly implemented ridiculously unbalanced changes to the system. And what has been worse about it has been watching people blame DnD for it. Because no, DnD is not the problem here. This is 100 percent Larian's own self-inflicted wound.
2. Does Larian make good worlds to interact with? Again, debatable. In the parts of their game that actually feel polished, like act 1 in BG3 or act 1 and 2 in DOS2, the world feels fun to interact with, and you can appreciate the effort that went into implementing multiple approaches to a problem. But much like the combat, it clearly degrades and falls apart by the end game.
3. Does Larian have good plot writing...? Bluntly, no. Hard no. I have never played a Larian game where I've been enthralled by the plot. And in fact I would say BG3 is probably one of their weaker plots. This is part of why I found the initial cutscene they released for BG3 so troubling. It had all the hallmarks of Larian writing. If there's one word I could use to summarize Larian's flaws, it's that they are "immature." Like, in combat, they can't seem to have the restraint to build fun effects that are still balanced; they have to give you ridiculously OP powers, and ridiculously OP items, because you get a short dopamine boost from using them the first couple of times. But then you end up frustrated because those OP things end up ruining combat by making it have zero challenge. And likewise, with the plot, they don't seem to be willing to do the work to draw people into the world on the strength of intrigue. It's immediately WHOOOOOAAA YOU'RE ON AN ALIEN SHIP AND THEN WHOOOOOA DRAGONS ATTACK AND THEN WHOOOOOOOAAA NOW YOU'RE IN HELL!!! And this continues into Act 1: You have archdemons casually teleporting onto a beach to talk with you at like, level 2. Their other games had a similar problem.
And also, they cannot seem to stop themselves from using modern anachronisms in what is supposed to be a fantasy world? I mean, I'm not super strict about this. The original Baldur's Gate games had a bunch of in-game gags referencing modern things (including items that were tongue-in-cheek references to the Blair Witch Project.) But it feels a bit different when it's a 'wink wink nudge nudge hey it's a joke' reference, vs when characters are using clearly modern terminology and there's no joke or reference, they're just.....written that way.
4. Does Larian have good character writing...? I know a lot of people say they enjoy the characters in BG3, and I do agree they're the most appealing characters in any Larian game to date, but the thing is....I don't know if that's actually down to Larian's writing. Like, I don't actually think their character writing improved at all. I think it's simply down to the fact that they gave the characters expressive, animated faces and fantastic voice actors. I've said it before, but I think I'd hate Gale's guts and find him super obnoxious if it wasn't for his VA and his expressive character - now I just sort of find him a lovable scamp. Maybe this is more of a criticism of the rest of the people in this space....they've relied on static paper dolls for a long time and it really handicaps them.
To be honest, I have very, very mixed feelings about Larian, and very, very mixed feelings about BG3. I mean, BG1 and BG2 are basically the grandfathers of WRPGs. Tons of games, even if not in the same format or similar setting, can trace their lineage back to BG. And Larian's strength has always been in making a very charming early-game, especially for people who are unfamiliar with them and their flaws. So the combination of Larian's early game charm and the number of people being introduced to them because of the popularity and legacy of the Baldur's Gate name led to an explosion in popularity. But that being said....I sort of wish Larian really just cashed in on the name, and didn't connect their game or story to the previous Baldur's Gate games at all. To me, all the flaws, all the disappointments in BG3 are absolute repeats of disappointments in previous Larian games; for that reason alone I don't buy into the idea that they can be blamed on other actors like WoTC and Hasbro. You don't need any explanation other than "Larian is a humongously flawed gaming studio."
I'm glad that they aren't making another DnD game. I don't think they treated the system very well; in fact they sort of seemed to have a bit of contempt for it. And if they move in a science-fiction direction, I actually think that would be great. I think the quirks of their writing would feel more at home in a sort of lighter-hearted scifi setting than they do in any fantasy setting. However, I am very, very skeptical of the idea that the new game would be "of even greater scope" than BG3. As far as I am concerned, Larian has literally never, not once, properly met the 'scope' of any of the games they've made. It sounds like more Larian "immaturity" to me, like another project where they'll inevitably burn out and have a crappy second half of the game because they didn't have a realistic vision to begin with. BG3 is the last game of theirs I will ever buy on release; in the future, I don't care how much people are singing their praises, I will wait until they release a DE. What I would want to see from them, more than anything, is a game where it feels like the passion they had for the first half still existed in the second half; or at the very least, a game where the quality did not crash so dramatically in the second half.
