This is the reason why games and films have directors, so things don't fall apart.
I don't think Larian has this approach - it seems to me like Larian encourages unrequested, and unexpected input from their devs. They pride themselves on wacky things they staff puts in. I would prefer for the game to be more curated - I like RPGs as a story telling medium, and BG3 is greatly lacking in that regard.
Is it bad, per say? People seem to enjoy that - you never know what's going to happen aroudn the corner etc. I find it unengaging. Facade falls apart a bit too easily. I want to buy in into the story, but the game doesn't allow for that. I think it tries to be entertaining, and it will depend on the player if they like it or not. I always admired RPGs for their slow-burning, throughful construction and worldbuilding, so BG3 ususally annoys and frustrates me. I would say it lacks "heart". A central idea, or theme that would tie all things together. I think it will be a curious game, but I doubt it will stand the test of time, once novelty wears off. Like with push it is entertaining to see at E3, but becomes old quickly. Some games get better the more you play, some don't. Larian's titles tend to be the latter.
Maybe this is why I also care enough to make a post about it. BG1&2 did stand the test of time very well and I want BG3 to succeed in the same way.
I remember literally nothing about DOS1 or 2 story, except that everyone was some kind of a sourcerer, even though I've completed the first and played at least 50% of the second. I only remember the gameplay with the surfaces and explosions and don't feel any kind of pull to ever go back to those games for either the story or the gameplay. BG1&2 story still stirs something in me. To this day I feel impressed by those games, and still sometimes replay them. It would suck if BG3 would only be remembered a short time for exploding barrels, funny shoves and talking squirrels rather than the story.
