I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.
I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.
This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.
This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.
Open your eyes.
I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.
Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.
As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.
Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.
There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.
Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.
