The Escapist article that me and another user agreed was poorly written, you said we only thought that because it disagreed with our preconceived notions yet you liking it has nothing to do with your preconceived notions? That's just fucking rich on your end. The Escapist article totally misrepresented the main issues the IGN video and other gamers brought up about BG3.
The IGN video is patently shit, for the reasons stated above.
It's not about which studio is bigger. Regardless of whether Larian is now bigger than say Obsidian or Bioware, both were bigger than Larian for much of their time.
I'm sure that sounded like it was a useful point in your own head. "Obsidian was once a larger company than Larian" (if that's even true) still doesn't mean that Obsidian was a large company to make a hugely ambitious project.
You're telling me a AAA dev doesn't have the team size and funding... Most RPGs don't tend to actually be RPGs and prioritize player choice
That depends on what a developer is trying to do.
So, think about this that a simple, regular old RPG is like a railroad. It takes someone from A to B, no deviations. RPGs then developed mostly towards simple alternative options to resolve quests and multiple endings. The player is still on a railroad, it's just that they now have several tracks they can switch between and a small choice of end destinations.
BG3 is complex in the sense that it has a highly developed world and interactions. But it's still a world that's entirely crafted, and a set of rail tracks. You have a vast ability to interact with the world, but
only within the limits that they have written for you. Once done something is done and over, and you have to move on. You're on fixed series of tracks that only leads to resolving a mindflayer invasion.
Now let's look at where, say, Bethesda has been going. There's still a rail track, but Starfield is allowing you to get off the train, go where you like, even just sit around in the countryside and ignore the rail journey entirely. That is offering you a world of opportunities to do stuff in a way that BG3 absolutely does not. And if you want to make a point about player choice,
this is a form of player choice, just a different one. The cost Starfield has paid for offering this form of choice is that compared to BG3 many of the mechanics are relatively shallow - the fetch and fight missions with stealth, persuade, fighting, etc. and limited environment interaction haven't really progressed at all.
I'd also note that RPGs where "player choice" has often been little more than picking the skills, spells, equipment and often with very linear plots have a long and distinguished history, and are still enjoyed by many today.
