I'm going to go against the rules here because I haven't played BG2 nor BG1, the latter came out when I was 3 and only knew of it's existance when BG3 was announced because of Larian.
Now, there is something that usually puzzles me about people here complaining and it's related to the reason why BG3 is being developed by Larian. I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate IP is not as renown nowadays as some people seem to imply, Larian would probably get more clients by just doing D:OS3, but what it IS really well known today is DnD, specially 5e, and that's what they are doing.
The reason Larian is doing this game is because of their success in D:OS2, so they've been given the keys to manage this "new DnD videogame experience", that happens to be Baldur's Gate.
---
I make this reply because they are not doing, nor trying to do a BG2 successor gameplay wise, they utilize the lore of course, the setting, but the gameplay is half dnd 5e, half Divinity, and that's what WotC probably asked them to do...
So my advice here is, judge this game based on what it strives to be, if you are going to judge it based on your opinion of how a BG2 successor should be, you are probably better off not even trying it.
And whether it is now, of after full release, it's just odd to compare games with a 24 years gap in between, totally different gaming landscapes, tech, user experience and demographics
