By gate I mean a mandatory cut off point that acts as transition between one piece of content and another. Baldurs Gate 3 has very few of those.
Again, this is exactly what Baldur's Gate 3 is FULL of.
Companion interactions are frequently based off of proximity to certain areas. Story transitions (Like, Zariel confronting Wyll) happen at specific times after doing specific things.
The only "Dynanicism" is the random barks they make while walking around. But even then that's not complex.
Yes, but as I mentioned Bethesda games are very lacking in other aspects (and also buggy - more so than BG3 In
would say, but I also didn’t spend that time with Bethesda titles, so maybe I have just been unlucky). BG3 does a lot of things (sometimes quite conflicting things - systems vs handcrafted cinematic storytelling, single player vs coop). You seemed to argue that Individual title do some things better you might argues, but point me to a game who does just as much in a single release - aka, of the same complexity.
Most Bethesda titles do just as much. Which is why I'm referring to them. They do the stuff with the object mobility and permenance, they do the stuff with NPC interaction, they do the stuff with personal reputations. They don't do coop (Though, modders make it possible and they do have FO76 as a multiplayer title... So it's not like the games can't support multiplayer, they just chose not to implement it)
Their being buggy does not make them any less complex (It just means their execution is less polished)
The main thing that Bethesda titles lack, is decent writing. Which isn't indicative of complexity.
You are referring to narrative outcomes, which is not the same as interacting with these outcomes in multiple states. Stealing an idol in itself is a convoluted puzzle box of systems and scripting. Compare Goblin grove, to let’s say a Pillars of Eternity dungeon like Fort Deadlight, Roderick’s Hold or the monastery from White March - do you really think those offer as many possible interactions and systems as BG3?
You're the one talking about narrative outcomes... When you reference those places in Pillars vs Goblin Camp...
Fort Deadlight offers many interactions. Entering the place under the guise of being a pirate, or going in guns blazing, or sneaking in. Then when you are in there, you can manipulate things to sneak in and kill the captain, you can lure him to the docks by messing with stuff to then kill him, you can sabotage his chair in the main hall, you can poison his drink in the main hall, you can talk to him and join him instead of killing him...
Compared to the Idol where you can steal the idol successfully... You can steal the idol and kill all the angry druids... Or you can ignore the idol...
Or the Goblin Camp where you can... Kill all the leaders. You can join the Absolute and raid the Grove. Or you can ignore them.
Those are the narrative outcomes from those 3 situations.
BG3 is narratively, not complex. Which is a common complaint about the game and especially the "Evil Route" the game is so railroady that you end up doing basically the same thing every playthrough.
The only aspect of these scenarios is that BG3 offers slightly more freedom in how you achieve a narrative outcome (I.e. Do you convince the spiders to attack the Goblins?, do you cheese the Idol by tossing it with a Mage Hand or by creating Darkness to obscure you?) which isn't necessarily more complex it's just utilizing different base systems (PoE offers less environmental interaction in favour of more scripted interactions whereby you get dialogue boxes and options based on your stats)
Beyond that, BG3 and all other RPG's are limited based on what interactions they can have with objects/NPC's and what is scripted as responses. It is no more complex than any other title in the genre besides offering a few more actions you can perform (Not all CRPG's allow for pickpocketing for example)
A game with complex interactions would be more like other modern titles (I.e. Something like San Andreas has fire that spreads, albeit with no consequences for such things. Some modern FPS games have terrain destruction). These systems are complex and require a lot of work to implement correctly, which is why they're so uncommon (Outside of lower poly titles such as Minecraft, Teardown, Deep Rock Galactic and Noita where it's much easier to create complex interactions because objects are voxel based and thus easier to work with).
The main thing BG3 has going for it is polish (Ironically given the mass complaints of bugs and rushed content). This is a result of being a AAA game where the extensive resources have allowed for things like enhanced graphics (As well as the more modern closer camera style as opposed to the typical isometic view of many CRPG's), motion capture to provide smoother animations, Voice Acting for all NPC's etc. This does not create complexity or scale, it simply is polishing up what was already created to provide an overall better experience.
