Well, the city of BG, as has been mentioned, was never really the 'thing' about the original games. In a way the original games were effectively mis-titled, because they never really were about that city. The games should've carried a title along the lines of "The Bhaalspawn Saga" or some such thing.
That's fair, but consider this: Larian have consistently created dense maps full of interesting stuff to discover. The opportunity for references are endless. Every faction you remember will have some sort of base in BG3. Any corner of the city might be shaped by past events and characters.
Also, if Larian made all of Baldur's Gate, odds are good they made the Undercity as well. Therein lies the Throne of the Dead Three. (I learned that factoid from Magic the Gathering's "initiative" mechanism, which happened to premier in the BG3 tie-in set.)
I understand being sour about game systems, but there's so much we don't know about the story and characters... There's no way BG3 could have started the way BG2 did - in medias res with fully known characters. The connection was always going to be looser. I suppose it could have been clearer from the start, but we don't know for sure that there's no link before act 2. Some parts of act 1 feel suspiciously barren or stumpy, so there's at least room for hope.
Give hope a chance! (That's been my mantra while waiting for patch 9).
