The whole premise of this thread makes no sense to me. The Bioware that made BG1 and BG2 simply doesnt exist anymore. Thus it couldnt have made BG3 either way. Or any other game.

More specifically the Bioware that made BG1 and BG2, or for that matter Knights of the Old Republic and the original Mass Effect triology, was sold to EA, and really only exist in name ever since. So, sure, EA could have made BG3 and put the "Bioware" label on it, because they own that name. But its not the same people, its not in any way the same kind or even just a related kind of company.

Just one example, the original Bioware's motto was "its done when its done". They would make great games because they would make games they themselves would like to play, and they would finish them properly. And especially in BG1 and BG2 there is some storytelling of a quality that is hard to find in games.

EA has no official motto but their maxime is clearly just capitalist profit maximization. Thats why they published money grabs like Dragon Age 2 or worse absolute trash like Mass Effect Andromeda. They arent Bioware and they destroyed what that company was. Many of the people that actually worked at Bioware left pretty quickly, especially also the founders of Bioware. The company is gone, and so is its spirit.

---

About Dragon Age, even the original game was finished only a good while after EA had already acquired Bioware, and even this original game was already deeply tainted by EA. Bioware originally wanted to make it a game that would be PC only and offered multiplayer, and certainly they didnt want to have a "free" DLC that would force you to give your private data to EA either.

Pretty much the same things happened to Mass Effect, by the way. Even if those games still turned out relatively okay, for whatever reason.

---

But I cant say that I care too much about Dragon Age either way, even if Bioware would have finished their original vision.

I havent played any other game but the original DA:O. I havent gotten the addon for DA:O, and I didnt bothered about the later games. So I dont know if it got worse after. I think I saw that the third game was supposed to be sort of okay. It still looked very much like they used the same bad rulesystem, though.

Still even the first game was already really bad.

The rulesystem designed for Dragon Age is frankly one of the competitiors for the worst rulesystem ever, with absolutely riddiculous design failures in really every area. How they designed classes was horrible. The subclass concept is nothing short retarded. The skills are godawful. The only area in which I actually liked the rulesystem was Mages. You actually got a nice variability in how to build those. So whoever designed this mess clearly had not spent much thought on how to design good rulesystems. It only doesnt get my price for worst rulesystem ever because other people have fucked up even worse.

And I also didnt like the world setting much. This whole Darkspawn thing, the other countries, none of this had much appeal. Dwarves cant be mages, oh how original. Yada yada nothing actually interesting. And dont even get me started on the weird stance on magic, was that even supposed to make any sense ?

I wasnt fan of the characters either. More tiresome stereotypes.

---

Would the original Bioware have made BG3 in the quality we've seen from Larian ? I dont think so. The passion Larian showed about BG2 is really only possible if you have great financial independence. Bioware was great, but they never became have been this great. For some reason they never archieved the degree of liberty that Larian seems to have archieved now.

Either way yes I'd love to see a BG3 from the original Bioware. Or a BG4 now. For example I'm sure they would have given us levels beyond 12 no problem. But thats of the past.

---

The trailer is dumb. Nuff said.