Right now it still feels like a fun forgettable ride. Of course a lot can change with a patch or two.
As I look at the mega-threads most complaints seem like logical ideas that casual gamers would enjoy too. Improved party controls & UI with asking for less superfluous advantage/disadvantage from verticality/backstab.
Would casual gamers have a preference between RTwP or Turn-based? No. Would casual gamers have a preference between a party of four versus six? No.
Even if a situation has a vocal minority, it should still be considered if their opinions are valid. Most consumers don't give feedback to the point where 3% responding to a survey is considered a win.
As as others have said casual gamers usually care about the glitz and the glam, which Baldur's Gate 3 has already done well with. So far Baldur's Gate 3 has mass-appeal with little to entice long-term fans of RPGs. I don't think it's too much to ask Larian to change a few things to keep long-term RPG fans happy.
Generally speaking, I'm also not sure why there's this ongoing assumption/narrative that history is decided by the silent majority. That has never been the case. History has always been driven by organized minorities who put their effort in leading around inert masses where they wanted them. The silent majorities are often silent because they don't have very much to say to begin with. That, and/or they just don't care. Which doesn't change much in practical terms.
Though there is to some extent a... Let's call it "Negativity bias" for a lack of a better term, I'm sure there is one. In online forums, people tend to be more driven towards voicing their opinions if it's of a "negative" nature- Actually let's call it criticism, that's often what the intent is. I don't actually want to throw shade on any group of people here, rather share an experience.
It's more likely for someone to find the motivation and interest in navigating to an online forum, register, and make a thread because of having something in the nature of criticism or wish for change, than to go and say "Hey I had fun, this is great." without seeking to influence anything. This also drives people to reply where someone seems to share their opinion, or to try and 'enlighten' anyone who disagrees. It's also perfectly human to be defensive about one's opinions, and sometimes fall victim to perceiving an opposing voice as an attack or dismissal, and some people indeed quite literally do this, in either direction.
The point I'm ultimately trying to make is, online forums has the odds stacked against it of often being dominated by variants of criticism or "negativity", often because it's the most passionate fans that in their own way just want something they love to be even more loveable, somewhere deep down, even though others may perceive them as haters.
I want to focus on Larian forums specifically, to "win an argument" here, in the only way that matters in the end of the day imo, is to influence the developers. Most people get stuck in interpersonal squabble instead of focusing on what matters; Making the developer want to read, instead of dismiss it as "angry irrational people". For example a long while back, before EA launched, I wrote to Larian about the narration perspective, that a 2nd person past-tense could potentially be damaging to the feeling of player agency. I wrote something along the lines of, albeit very simplified and shortened, "Hey, if the narrator speaks about something that is currently happening, as something of the past, then as a player it may feel like the story is already set in stone, you're just viewing it through the lens of a history book, you're not actually choosing what you do in the moment. So I believe it should be narrated in 2nd person present-tense, so that the player has a stronger sense of driving the story and making the choices as they go themselves." - No squabble, no frustrated rants about how they're bad developers or ruin D&D or how everyone that disagrees with me is ignorant, or get stuck on calling them out for ad hominems, strawmans, or any other non-sense. Just keeping the eye on the ball, and presenting a rational argument.
Now I'm doubtful that my particular message was in any means impactful or the straw that broke the camel's back, I'd be surprised if not many people shared the same "awkward feeling" towards how the earlier form of narration was, but I believe level-headed discussion that focuses on the merit of the criticism, rather than other participants of the debate, goes a long way. In fact, I believe that undermines the criticism more than anything, and I dare say most people share their criticism because they hope to see it make a difference. That's what I'm trying to say I suppose, that I want criticism and calls for action to actually inspire action, rather than to undermine itself by falling victim to typical weaknesses of the human psyche.
Also, I'll suspend myself for making who ever makes it this far suffer with a TL;DR wall of stuff that probably could be about nine paragraphs shorter - Though I'll excuse myself with a 5 day tenure of insufferable heat and no wind. Please send help.
