I think someone else really gave the reason. It's not that BG3 did any one thing exceptionally well. Success in these kinds of things are alchemy, not science. There's no set of ingredients that you can put in that will guarantee results. There's just some tried and true aspects mixed in with luck, creativity and even more luck. If you ask me, I don't think there's any part of what BG3 did that a different game hasn't done better. But maybe it's just that they did enough things good enough.
[quote=Halycon Styxland]I do not like the word simplicity; it sounds like boredom. I remember when planescape: torment pride itself for having more than 100 000 lines of dialogue.
Thing change i do not know if it is for the better.
Reading is a byproduct of low budget. Owlcat or Obsidian didn't even had the third of budget that larian had to make bg3.
Not wanting to make a big game does mean it would mostly cater to hardcore audience rather casual audience.
It is hard, i would even say impossible to cater to both hardcore and casual audiences.
Simplicity and boredom are two entirely different things. Simplicity means that things are easy to wrap your head around and you can launch into it straight away. It means there's minimal extaneous elements to worry about. Simple can be boring, but so can complexity. Just look at any board game with a huge booklet of rules that are super complex and intricate and lead to people just zoning out or getting frustrated. there's a sweet spot of simplicity vs complexity, which is different for everyone and also varies depending on what you're trying to do. As I said, making games is a process of alchemy.
