I never learned to like the Diablo -like loot systems
First of all, hold up, mate. Why would you bring an ARPG, a totally different, distinct genre, while we here are talking about tabletop RPGs and their adaptation for a videogame? What nonsense. Diablo is great for its own genre, Diablo II basically created a genre. Which leads to the second point,
I hate being showered with stuff in DOS games
it doesn't resemble real life at all
Have you ever played DOSII? "showered with stuff"? Where? If you kill a bandit and he/she has a sword and armor that you can strip, how this "doesn't resemble real life at all"? You also have an option to not loot every corpse. You find unique and rare stuff on specific bosses/quests. You find food in food barrels, books on bookshelves, rare gear in specific locations, regular items and trash where they should be. Realistic. You are free to take, but not forced. Never heard anybody complain about the loot system in DOSII. Diablo-like loot system? What a nonsense.
Sure.
Never heard of an "old school" who would prefer a 5th edition to a 3.5 edition.
5e is not boring. It's vastly superior to DOS or Diablo and many others
To throw such nonsense statements (like "vastly superior", and again, why do you bring up Diablo, a totally different genre?), you need to back it up with, at least, something. Not an abstract "it focuses on the right things", but say what these "right things" exactly.
5e is inferior in everything mechanically to previous editions, and I can say in what exactly. To name a few things, gold having a use, magic items being purchasable, skills for specific things, feats for specific combat maneuvers. Ways to improve/modify every character ability. Magic in 3.5 is much more versatile and powerful. Alignments. Builds. You need to go deep into system to understand it in 3.5/Pathfinder.
5e is indeed an "imagination engine". 5e is ultimately simpler, with a looser rules system, fewer mechanics. It requires more GM interpretation of the rules (so many Homebrew systems out there), and isn't as solidly written as 3rd edition (CJMPinger literally have already written about this above).
3.5/Pathfinder are much more complicated and deep. In 5e you become a hero through the imagination play with DM, it's much more beginner-friendly, in 3.5/Pathfinder you become a hero through the deep understanding of a system and grind. Surely most people (especially tabletop people) would prefer 5e. Who wants to spend a lot of time on understanding of systems? But we are talking about a mechanical greatness in a videogame, and about videogame that is interesting. Not empty and dull.
DOSII is like a personal homebrew of Larian, of a 3.5e, a tactical heaven. To understand superiority of it to a 5th edition, just compare Solasta to a DOSIInd tactical greatness that captured hearts of millions (we are talking about mechanics only, will not judge Solasta for anything other, it being an indie game basically. It looks quite nice.).
5e is boring by itself, and only a good DM and hyper-active players can change that. Then it is interesting to watch/play. Because to compensate the lack of mechanics it uses imagination, where you can "do anything", "become anything". Everybody who knows about 5e and how it is played will agree on that. Another point that in 5e you can "become anything" basically from the beginning. Leveling doesn't really matter. Just imagine yourself a barbarian, use Rage, and be a hero.
Trying to force videogamey systems on top of 5e makes the whole thing an unsatisfying mess
Would agree on this point. As I've said previously, indeed, how would you transfer an imagination, that is a core component of 5e, to a videogame? There is no way. Maybe only using an AI, as constant DM. Try AI Dungeon to understand what an AI sharpened for this can do as a DM.
[in 3.5] the system felt like it expected you to make the optimal choices when leveling up instead of what seems fun or right for the character
This is the main reason many prefer tabletop 5e. Freedom of imagination.
3.X is by far the better system for computer games IMO. The laundry list of crpgs published using various iterations of its ruleset and spinoffs of it proves this by itself. 5e is only now getting into the game with Solasta and BG III despite the success of this edition. IMO it's all about completely different focuses in design. 5e might make for good watching, might be good for quick sit-down-and-play, might be beginner friendly and forgiving for improvising DMs, but that comes at a cost.
A lot is made about how 3.x was 'too complicated' but that trait is anything but a failing when we are talking about video games, because all those calculations, all that paperwork and index cards etc can be handled by the game itself for the player. Folks point out all the modifier stacking that happened in 3x, but turn based video games regularly do this all the time.
There's also a lot less choice in character creation/progression/build I feel. Like how you get pidgeonholed into one of two specializations only a few levels in. weapon choice is almost an esthetic choice outside of damage type (where applicable) with the removal of so many weapon types, the critical modifier and range, and special properties. Armor is almost a straight progression with no variation in dex modifier or armor check penalty etc, no special materials, no nonmagical modifications that can be made to them. I could go on, etc.
So I don't blame Larian at all for trying to fiddle around with special attacks for weapons and codifying some new instances of when and where you can get advantage/disadvantage to encourage positioning. Stuff like that. Because the places where 5e shines just really don't show or count for much in the medium of video games.
Indeed, for a computer game, where computations are done in the background, 3.x system is much better. Hope Larian will add more mechanics into the Definitive BG3 release, hope WoTC will allow them freedom to do this. But, hearing screeching about basic environmental effects from D&D folks... I understand why Sven is in pain.
