I don't care about the sex. I choose Shadowheart as romance, because hers is the one with the least sex content, because it's not, what I want. I'm in act 3 right now and don't see any bugs and enjoy it immensely. The only thing is that I had to start the
Raphael
fight over, because one of the opponents bugged out. That's it. I have more bugs in games, that are years released.
I am very happy for you.
Unfortunately the truth of it is, if everyone had your experience, the large patches with bug fixes would not be necessary. The eurogamer reviewer's Act 3 literally fell apart including a save file corruption breaking her game that she had to reach out to Larian for to fix. I also ran into that bug. She understandably gave the game a 4/5 and was attacked for it.
I have seen no one praise the actual technical aspects of the game. Such as the UI, camera, pathfinding, system implementation like stealth/stealing being well done or that tying camp events to long rests worked well and didn't mean different playstyles could miss more or less things. How interesting the companions are is subjective. How they are implemented to have limited platonic interactions, the 'spokes on a wheel' approach where they are hyper focused on the player and the game will just assume relationships with others without showing it or how interactions dead end are not subjective. The story is a mess. Choice and consequence were marketing hyperboles.
It is indeed possible for a game to be very loveable while also having major flaws. This is not a case of a game that just does everything well instead of innovating either, because it does quite a few things poorly, a lot is mediocre and nearly everything it does do well at the start degrades in quality the further along you get. Either by phasing it out to the bare minimum, or by what feels a lot like just ticking a box to say it's there. We are left with VA, presentation and environment interactivity as the highlights.
Those are some grim highlights for a game that supposedly is genre defining.
There are games on the list of 'greatest/highest rated of all time' that you did not or will not enjoy. If you don't like hack and slash ARPGS, Diablo 2 is just not your thing no matter what. Just like there are 6/10, 7/10 or 8/10 games that you love to death for what it does or tries to accomplish. Every Gothic/Risen fan knows about that one. That does not mean the scores should be the other way around.
What I am seeing is the community telling the industry that as long as you are perceived to be the underdog, gamers don't actually care about the overall quality of your product. Most won't even finish the game, but they'll defend the first sweet lie on your plate viciously and if you pick a niche genre, most won't know any better and aren't interested in knowing any better too.
BG3 is an experience. It is also a very weak CRPG.
