DOS 2 is a severed flawed game and I could never understand how it got that much praise.
It's genuinely good game. Perfect? No. But it's not as bad as you are making it sound.
I hoped that BG3 would be created based on the originals mechanic rather DOS 2, which was not the case.
Baldur's gate 2 is 20 years old now. DnD has had 3 new editions since then, changes from the originals were bound to happen. For now i don't see anything that different(given i never finished BG2), apart from turn based combat.
Larian is not listening to feedback and my fear is that they continue to do so, as they did in DOS2 EA.
Why? What feedback should they listen to? People constantly nagging about turn based combat? Or how it isn't carbon copy of BG2?
While there are problems with few mechanics(height advantage), they did remove surface effects from cantrips when people asked for it. You must also remember that not all feedback is good feedback, sometimes people want changes that would be detrimental to the game as a whole.
Honestly, I hold the opinion that DOS1 is a better game than DOS2 in everything but the cheeky writing and the combat. I enjoyed the latter half of the first game way more than the second. Especially the ice realm chapter which felt like a true adventure, wandering through a frozen kingdom looking for warmth and shelter, having to fight and move with the threat of a persistent slowing effect without any nearby heat source throughout. That was probably my favorite part of both games. DOS2 environments were rather samey in comparison.
Now that you mention it, yes first one had more environmental variety than the second. I genuinely liked that it forced me to change tactics in those areas.
