I would also like to present an argument as to why BG3, a Larian Game, should be like its predecessors made from another studio. One can easily think the following: BG3 is a Larian game, which will operate as a spiritual successor to DOS2, and they are not bound by the actions of another studio twenty years ago. While this point is valid, and DOS2 is very much the core DNA of BG3 (and rightfully so), I think the line of thinking is misguided. The game is called Baldur's Gate 3, implying some line of succession from the previous two games, and it is not called Baldur's Gate: Ascent from Avernus or Baldur's Gate: Divine Conspiracy. While story-based continuity or style-based continuity is not necessary between BG2 and BG3, I think some level of immersion-continuity and thematic/tonal continuity would be nice. I think it is wrong to dismiss the concerns and critiques of fans of BG1+2 out of hand (as hardline as some of them may be), as I used to see on the subreddit last year (to be fair, the folks on r/baldursgate aren't much nicer to BG3 fans). At the same time, Larian should not be discouraged from using a system and style with which they have already found success and warm reception.
If I could ask Larian to take away anything from the feedback here, it is to work on immersion, characterization, and the "living world," and how all three of those things create a feedback loop for each other.