Most comments pro, and against, BG3, have the same 2 similarities: 1) they love Baldur's Gate, and 2) they love Divinity Original Sin.

Seeing defenders of the turn based change, saying that pen & paper D&D is turn based, don't you make to ask the obvious? Real life table top games always were turn based, but Baldur's Gate not only was real time + tactical pause, but the CREATOR of that popular system which today still superb.

I think what people wanted (including me), wasn't a Baldur's Gate outside of their own genre, what we wanted was just a Divinity Original 3 with D&D rules.

I wonder when enterprises will learn to left untouched the jewels of the past. The use of a glorious name just for marketing is evident, we know, everyone can notice that this is not a Baldur's Gate game.

So were the SSI Gold-Box games - Pool of Radiance (original), Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades, Pool of Darkness; Champions of Krynn, Death Knights of Krynn, Dark Queen of Krynn; and so forth. Except, this game is actually set in the Sword Coast, in or near the city of Baldur's Gate.

I actually wanted a modern BG, along the lines of BG Enhanced.
With a combat that feels D&D

Not OS, that I personally find unpleasurable due to its vary laborious combat.

Comparing any game made today (and BG3 is still many months off from release, I would say) with games made 20-30 years ago is such a ridiculous waste of time. I can't even understand the principles involved...;) Games at that time, just like games today, were completely wrapped around and limited by the hardware, software, and API limits of their time. Why people even want to pass judgement on the EA BG3--the game is maybe another year from release--comparing it unfavorably to games finished and fully patched and modded literally decades ago is also baffling.

I think BG3 has the potential to be the game of the year in whatever year it releases when it is finished, and maybe even one of the all-time great games ever made. People seem oblivious to the fact that the Early Access isn't even 1/3-1/4 of the final game content--that on the Sword Coast in the EA you can't even get to Baldur's Gate--yet! The criticisms to date are, I think, nutso...;) This looks like it's going to be a wonderfully l-o-n-g game to me.

One thing is certain: nobody can say what BG3 is or isn't at this time. Of course not. What BG3 is or is not will not be known until the BG3 game ships.

And then there's always this smartass explaining to us stupids how the world works DESPITE everyone with some sense seeing what a turd BG3 is.

You think you're smart because you know a bit of programming?
It's not about the programming it's about the story and world and the divinity style combat.
This has nothing to do with the technical aspect.

You know nothing kid. Posts like yours are a waste of time.

Something else to explain to the "stupids": Not everyone on the internet will agree with your opinions. And it's OK.

The only time RT w/ Pause is actually viably fun for anything more complex than the old 2nd Edition Rules of BG / Icewind Dale etc, is when it comes packaged with an AI manager like Pillars of Eternity 2 or Dragon Age. The more complexity you add to your core rules, the more obnoxious RT w/ Pause becomes.

Unless you have that AI management on point. And to be fair, I absolutely love AI management when it's done well. But in lieu of that, I prefer turn-based = Classic D&D combat.

TYRANNY is a perfect example of a RTwP game that SHOULD have been fun, but the lack of party AI management for buffs / debuffs made it a chore to play. I was liking the plot, but absolutely hated the combat. Whereas if they had just gone ahead with the full PoE2 emulation and included detailed party AI, I'm sure I would have loved that game.

And Cyberpunk 2077 wasnt? Its normal.

I like how Bethesda is building their hype for Starfield. They want to be as clear as possible.

See? That is exactly what I said since the title:

People are confused about what they want

You want a Divinity Original Sin 3, with D&D rules. That's all. Am I wrong?

Let's explain some of the complains here:

"The game is set in the Sword Coast". Aha... Dark Alliance was set in the same site, but it wasn't called Baldur's Gate 3, right? Because it was in a different genre. See my point?

"I actually wanted a modern BG". Do you mean modern in graphics, or...? A modern Chess would be a mix of Chess with Cards? Or that would be a different genre?

"Comparing any game made today with games made 20-30 years ago". Many issues here: 1. How to not compare something with the same name and a consecutive number? 2. "Hardware limitations". Really? The first CRPG was turn based, RT w/P is much modern. 3. And what is that "Game of the Year" thing? Leave consoles with those absurd competitions, we have real games here, Games of the Decade.

"The only time RT w/ Pause is actually viably is when it comes packaged with an AI manager like Pillars of Eternity 2 or Dragon Age". So... aren't we wanting the best of the best, if they want to put a "3" in the best of the best saga?

But I'm sure will not change your minds, so, before respond, ask you this: Would be worse, equal, or better, if this game were named differently? Like Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was. Maybe they would sell even more if they were named Baldur's Gate 3, but it will never felt as Baldur's Gate 3, right?

redacted.

If you can't afford to spend money, you shouldn't be spending it. Especially on a video game regardless of if the game is good or not. That's just simple home economics.