Honnestly I'm not interrested in BG3 "because it's a D&D game" but trying to learn what I was talking about here lead me to this conclusion : D&D has a stronger, deeper and more consistent system than the hybrid system we have in BG3.
I don't understand why a video game couldn't have a strong, deep and consistent system and a few "fun" homebrewed additions at the same time.
Again, it's only a matter of balance not to drive players in a way more than in another.
That approach would have required Larian to start with 5E rules, and then modify change those rules, but that's not what happened. They started with DOS, and then tried to add in 5E, found it too difficult and/or didn't really understand 5E rules well enough to balance changes to them, and what we have is the current gobbledygook of DOS with a smattering of 5E.
Technically, from what I remember, Swen mentioned that they started out with very strict rules but internal testing showed that they didn't work well. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter.
I don't believe it. First because they've clearly reused DOS engine and adapted to d20 rolls and might've simply thought that some features are too much work to implement. Second, Solasta is a very strict adaptation and it works well, in fact it is scoring higher than BG3.
Comparing the ratings of the two games is completely irrelevant. Solasta currently has 3,000 reviews and BG3 over 37,000. However, let's ignore this fact. The mass of negative BG3 reviews (I recommend reading reviews on steam) was due to the fact that it is not a BG2 clone.
