To get back to the topic, I was among those who responsed to same thread the OP was quoting before that one was locked, and I'll paraphrase what I said there:
I am a fan of the originals and a fan of classic RPGs. I've been that for decades. My first games of this kind were Dungeon Master, Wizardry 7 and Realms of Arkania. I was there when Fallout came out, when BG1 was the new big thing, I played BG2 to exhaustion, then Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2, BG1/2 EE, the Pathfinder games and many more. And I have been a tabletop GM for longer than all that. I do not know about "everyone" since I am not everyone, but BG3 is definitely for me.
Do I think it will be perfect? No. Will it do everything my ideal game would do? No. Do I have some concerns? Yes. But I think the things I might criticize will be minor compared to everything BG3 will do right.
I think some people who criticize BG3 - or what they think it will be like since nobody really knows the full picture as yet - make too much of what they perceive as flaws.
Why should I think BG3 is not for me?
Turn-based combat? Not a choice I would've made. I even have some concerns about it incentivizing ambushes too much and I really don't like the lack of free movement during combat. But I'm reasonably certain I can make it work for me. If you're an old RPG gamer, you should be so adaptable by this point. There were times when every game of this kind was turn-based. And you know....it worked.
Adherence to a specific ruleset? Man, I've played so many rulesets. Here's the thing: Rulesets don't matter for roleplaying. It would take some effort, but BG3 could be translated into a different system with the world and its lore, the characters and the story all intact. All right, the rules matter more in a CRPG than in tabletop, since our arbitrator is a non-intelligent piece of software with no appreciation for storytelling, but it still doesn't matter what exact mechanics are used, as long as the probability distribution of decisions made the by dice is convincing. So being fundamentalist about rules makes no f***** sense, and in all those years mentioned above I have played not a single game session with no house rules. I don't like all of BG3's rules. I don't even like all of D&D's rules. In fact, I would've chosen a completey different ruleset were this my campaign. But if lore, characters and story are good, that is anything from a minor concern to completely irrelevant. If I sit down to play BG3, I am not playing D&D, I am playing a character in a fictional world experiencing story events and acting on them, and the best compliment I could ever give a videogame is "It is so immersive that it makes me forget the game mechanics".
Banging the bear? I won't do it and I don't care for it, but it'll be five seconds in a game of 200 hourse. Why the heck should I complain because a game has a few seconds of content that does not interest me?
Romance in general? I'm usually critical of people who place too much importance on this element, but I like that it's there and have occasionally engaged with it and liked it. I laugh about most romance scenes but they have gotten better over the years.
So yes, IMO BG3 is definitely for people like me. Not all, obviously. But that post that said it would be neither for fans of classic RPGs nor for fans of the originals? Well.....BS.
