If you write a criticism claiming that a game is bad and that game won a huge number of awards for many different aspects of it, you have to explain the awesome success of that game.
That's easy. It is a AAA production, that isn't a pisstaker. It's a massive campaign, for a set, reasonable price with no microtransations. An unusually high production of what is a traditionally a nieche genre, but a privately owned developer with distincts sensibilities. An achievement worth celebrating.
By all means I am happy for Larian success, and I hope they continue succeeding and evolving.
BG3 is... fine. The way most, mass production AAA games are fine. Too unfocused, trying to appeal to a too wide of an audience to do a single thing particularly well. I have spent two years criticising various aspects of BG3, and don't feel repeating myself. For one, I spend enough time doing that, and those can be found (though Larian's forum doesn't make it easy) but more importnatly: my criticism is irrelevant. Larian more or less finished the game, and my feedback is moot at this point (and has been for some time). I don't care if other people think it is the best RPG of all time. I am happy that they enjoyed it. Personally, I didn't find BG3 to be exceptional, and in some areas it felt strangely clunky. I had good enough time with it.
And to be honest, in spite of its shortcoming BG3 would probably be a contender for my GOTY as well - not many standouts for me in that year, though I am yet to play some important releases of that year. And lets be honest, there have been some real stinkers crowned as GOTY, and BG3 definitely isn't that!
