Do you even need such production values in the first place if they mostly go towards cinematics, and those aren't all that great in the first place? The direction is often worse than in, say, DA:O, to be honest.
Eh, it's a difficult balance. I mean, personally, for now I am still against cinematics in cRPGs, in the same way as I would rather have silent protagonist, over bland, non-discripts PC voice as an attempt to be both fully voiced, and allow players to roleplay. For me personally, the "RPGs" that worked with cinematics are those that also greatly limited who our PC is (Mass Effect, Witcher3). For a game like BG3 to work, they would need to come up with a dynamic cinematic system that would adjust to my roleplaying choices and shifting power dynamics between actors, and I am just not sure how it could be done.
As to comparison to DA:O. I thought DA:O was very uneven. It had some great cinematics, mostly in early game, but for majority of the playtime, it was both farily limited, and not very good. But I do think, that at least at times, DA:O achieved competency (in both non-interactive cutscenes, like intro or battle scenes, and some mildly interactive sequences like meeting King Cailan) that BG3 was never able to get close to. Still, I think DA:O was only good, when PC wasn't an active participant, and anything with PC was pretty bad. I thought BG3 pulled of interactive, cinematic dialogue much better, as misguided as the core concept is in my opinion.
I must say that that Bioware titles from that era (Mass Effect1&2, Dragon Age1) were particulalry well done in cinematic sense - something Bioware didn't managed to do before or after. I do wonder if there was a particular person, or a group of persons thanks to whom cinematics in those games didn't suck.
