Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game. It only means, it doesn't suit your taste and you had totally different expectations about it. I think it's crucial to understand, that there are people (a lot of them, actually), that are very much hyped and thrilled, of what they saw and read so far. There are also others (also many), that may feel the way you feel, because of different reasons (be it a suboptimal cast of characters, turn based combat, not enough homage to BG1 /BG2, or something else entirely). That's the way this industry works, unfortunately. It's like with Bethesda, some were thrilled Fallout went fully 3D, others absolutely despised this direction. Again, this alone didn't define, if Fallout 3 was good or bad game.
Again, just to be clear, I don't take a joy from your disappointment, it sucks to feel that way, but you already know, what kind of game it would be and you must realize it won't change a minute before the launch. I really don't see the point of torturing yourself about the game, that makes you sad or angry.
I have my concerns too, you know. I wasn't that much impressed about the story of DOS2 and I wasn't also as proficient in combat, to breeze through it on Tactician. In other words, DOS2 was a very good game, but that's it. There is a chance I may be overhyping BG3 and it may turn out not to be the game of the year for me, but that's the risk I'm willing to take, being an equally long-time FR fan as you. Moreover, it's precisely because I'm a fan of this setting, I want to keep an open mind, before I play it, and specifically avoided playing EA, not to spoil myself a fresh experience.
Am I a player that usually plays good-aligned characters? - Yes, at least during my first run.
Do I believe that BG1/BG2 had very limited options to role play evil-aligned characters? - Yes, and on top of that, you cannot really compose a full party of evil characters that covers all roles (not to mention having a choice).
Do I believe BG3 remedied that? - Yes, and in the best possible way, by giving me *an option* to play good or evil, with all the ramifications of playing both ways. If you play totally evil lunatic, you will end up with no one left in your party, with everyone being either dead or ditching your sorry arse. Your character may be extremely powerful, but will end up alone and miserable. And I know you don't acknowledge this, but to me personally, redeeming a certain companion in WoTR was one of the most rewarding accomplishments in this game.
Do I believe BG3 won't have enough typical heroic characters? - Yes and no. I wouldn't mind having one such character. A purely good one (not in a zelous way), who would try to stay on this path no matter what. But given the time and resources Larian needs to create another joinable character, one such companion would be enough.
Do I believe BG3 glorifies evil approach and is too brutal? - Not at all. I totally trust Swen Vincke, that this will be a game of choices, and you can play this game as a heroic character (not simply avoid doing evil stuff). The only problematic part may be the tadpole inside your head, which represents evil influence trying to take over your body and mind, but so was Bhaal's blood in original trilogy. The difference is that in BG1/BG2 this aspect was completely ignored from a gameplay perspective and didn't affect your choices. It was just a background. In BG3 tadpole is a real deal, which you must face. Wether you emerge victorious from this struggle or succumb to the powers it gaves, is entirely your choice.
Believe it or not I agree with a lot of what you say here. The one thing I feel strongly differently about is whather the game will allow me to play a true good hero AND where that path is fun and enjoyable and satisfying and not just a lame option where the game effectively punishes you at every turn. But this is an empirical question, one that will soon be answerable once players start playing the full game. So I am going to wait to see what the individuals on this forum whom I trust to be honest with me will have to say on this once they have played the game next month.
You mentioned the whole "redemption" issue as well. I've been thinking a lot about that, and I think a huge part of my disconnect with others here is in the imprecise use of the language. It's the difference between whether someone is a sinner or a victim, which are two entirely separate things. The concept of redemption is associated with sinners, who are people who knowingly and willfully did sinful things but who have now had a change of heart and are seking redemption for their past sins. A victim, OTOH, is who is a person who was forced or manipulated into a certain way of life against their will or without their knowledge, and who are now seeking, NOT redemption (because that doesn't apply), but rather justice for their victimization. And so to clarify, I don't have much sympathy for sinners seeking redemption. But I do have complete sympathy for victims seeking justice.
