Yet sales and completion stats are objective metrics.
Sure. They are objective metric for sales. Who are you even trying to fool here? Are we trying to attempt the angle where any criticism should be dismissed on the virtue of popularity contests? Guess the only good movies are the blockbusters, too.
Recycling outdated game design doesn't make a competent, engaging and complex CRPG.
The only thing outdated here is your pretense to be taken seriously every time you make a claim like this stating it as a fact.
BG2 was good in 2000. If it was released today even with modern graphics it would be considered mediocre compared to RPGs like DA:I, OS2, Witcher 3.
Complete, utter bullshit. You're delusional. Dragon Age Inquisition isn't even the best Dragon Age and the oh-so-lauded Dragon Age Origins was often considered a second-rate attempt to recapture the magic of BG2 by most of the people who knew better.
I wouldn't really consider these three games combined as good as BG2, NOT EVEN even with the tech advantage and some design choices I'm far more favorable to (i.e. turn-based combat over RTWP), let alone if they were going to lose that edge. And the third is a completely different genre anyway, so I'm not sure of what relevance it's even supposed to be (still, mechanics were always TW3's weakest points).
You could have spared me a long winded answer that in the end it doesn't really say anything of value beside "I'm going to defend whatever questionable blunder Larian could make as if my very life depended on it". I already got the gist several discussions ago.
For the rest, most your tedious attempt to keep arguing that you couldn't have a game that works with both a 4 and a six-men party keeps being something you cling to exclusively out of sheer stubbornness. It's ridiculous because built over the assumption that you can objectively nail balance (something that will feel entire different to pretty much every single player according to class used, playstyle, familiarity with the system, etc. It's not a strong argument per se, but it becomes especially weak given that many already conceded more than once in the discussion that they would take the option for a larger party even at cost of getting absolutely zero rebalance around it, something that at that point would literally have NO negative effect on your morbid attachment for a boring small party.
"BU-BUT WHAT IF I WANT TO PLAY SOLO because managing more than two characters gives me an aneurysm?". Well. Suit yourself, but most people don't get into party-based CRPGs to play fucking Diablo.