Given how cRPGs usually go, I don't see BG3 staying that high. It is definitely not going to get the ratings that D:OS2 did, because as time goes on, it becomes more and more apparent that what really happened was that people went into D:OS2 with few expectations and got completely blown away. It got hailed as a game that revitalized a dying genre and turn-based gameplay style. But it's been a few years since and more people have reached the poorly balanced second half of the game that warranted a definitive edition overhaul, and people have gone to explore the cRPG genre and returned to find DOS2's writing to be lacking. cRPGs are no longer really a dying genre, and turn-based is suddenly in vogue again.
While I do think Larian brought some fresh air into cRPG mainly through reactivity and object/environment interaction I never understood how well DOS2 reviewed. They had a fairly polished indie game with a distinct engine, but the writing was generic, the armor system was severed flawed, the game was pseudo-non-linear, the environments were repetitive, among many flaws. I cannot see it as 10/10 game even with all minor innovations.
Having said that, I still prefer Larian's approach to re-interpret the franchise/cRPG than being extremely faithful to originals like WoTR. The innovation Larian is bringing to BG3 (if in fact they pull it off in the end) is doing this massive cRPG with this many permutations while having cinematics and full VO in a engine that allows environment interactivity. Even if mechanically may not be that different, the player experience is totally different and, in the end, is what it matters for a game to be innovative and raise the bar. And, to be clear, I am huge critic of Larian and current BG3 design choices.
