Entertainingly enough, I know you didn't bother to read what was stated, as I very explicitly clarified a comparison to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. So, before you look to criticize the points being made, actually read them before, you know, criticizing them. That said, it's irrelevant to me who elected to name this game as part of the Baldur's Gate franchise, because that was not a point of my argument. My point in comparison was that this game plays nothing like, reads nothing like, and behaves nothing like the previous Baldur's Gate PC games, which is a point I generally dislike. At the very least, I would expect scripting and storyline capabilities to be alike in this respect.
But, again, I would encourage you to actually read what you're addressing before you try to address it.
Entertainingly enough, I did read your post. Just because I quoted a single small part, doesn't mean I didn't read the entire thing. I'm addressing a specific point within it. Kind of like what quoting is for.
However either way, you again fail to address the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games.
"I'm only talking about the PC Baldur's Gate games, not the other Baldur's Gate games!" is literally ignoring all evidence against your (already invalid) point because you don't feel like discussing it, or say it doesn't apply.
Evidently, it doesn't fit your narrative and support your arguments, so you won't bring it up or acknowledge it "Not being/playing like a Baldur's Gate game", despite it being directly part of the Baldur's Gate franchise.
Dark Alliance didn't play like the PC games, but nobody held it against it or the originals, because it's intended to be a different kind of game.
Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't play like the originals, because it's intended to be a different kind of game; more true to tabletop (Though they still have a long way to go to achieve this).
If games stayed the exact same throughout their franchise cycle and never evolved, we would all be playing D&D-themed Tetris right now.
