It’s entirely possible to like a game AND still to recognize its shortcoming in some areas.
Yes, I know. Do you really think that people here consider Arcanum a masterpiece because of its combat design? No, it's because problems with BG3 go much deeper than that.
There’s “my ideal game should be this way” and there’s facing fucking reality and comparing what’s actually available as an alternative.
It has nothing to do with “my ideal game should be this way." It's about the core design principles of BG3 being completely wrong and thus resulting in something that is irredeemable, other than turn-based combat and interactivity which I think were done well.
BG3 was written by more than 10 people, which is the reason why its story and quests are such a disjointed mess that are a big turn-off for most people here, who prefer games that have a singular vision of what its story and setting are supposed to be like, with a focused scope. BG3 is the stark opposite.
Furthermore, Larian's approach to design through early access where only the first act is focused and the rest is based on the feedback from Larian forums/reddit furries only exacerbates my previous point. The story doesn't feel personal, it doesn't feel it was written by someone wanting to express any ideas other than pandering to current social norms and causing shock to anyone who doesn't agree with such norms. The game simply deserves no respect because of this approach.
The success of BG3 has nothing to do with the merits of its design, it's a knee jerk reaction to the overall state of the industry and a result of twisted mainstream culture surrounding it.
No one will talk about it 10 years from now, and if they do, it will be about the problems I already mentioned, not qualities.