Sorry, correcting missing words:
--> I know full well that other people are more  comfortable with turn-based
--> I like pineapple but mango not so much. (A very important correction worth a double post.)

I'll be honest; when it came to the gameplay reveal I was personally disappointed.

The cutscenes look gorgeous, that's for sure, but sexy cutscenes alone don't make a game good. Once the actual gameplay started I was immediately reminded of only one thing, and that's Divinity: Original Sin 2. Which I tried playing for hours, but never really got along with and ended up dropping without even coming close to finishing. Since then I've read various interviews on BG3 and most of them talked about D:OS2, but rarely did they touch on the previous games in any way other than to throw shade at the RTwP system - one of the senior designers even admitted to not having really played much of the original games.

Which I suppose is my main fear. Have Larian just taken D:OS2, a game I personally didn't enjoy, and shoehorned some D&D rules into it just so that they can call it "Baldur's Gate 3"? Because I didn't really see anything from their reveal that reminded me of Baldur's Gate, but a lot that reminded me of D:OS2. If Larian just want to make a Divinity-style game in the Forgotten Realms setting with some D&D rules, then more power to them, but from what I've see so far it's not really "a Baldur's Gate game", and I kind of wish they'd run with an original IP instead of taking the Baldur's Gate name, because that means people like me won't ever get a BG3 that's made for them.

I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy it but if it just feels like playing a D:OS game then I probably won't, personally. I'd prefer RTwP but I'd live with the turn-based if the story and other gameplay is actually good and the combat isn't too much of a chore in between. I'm not a fan of their weird "past tense first person narrative" dialogue trees though, and the characters we saw in the reveal weren't hugely appealing to me from the first look we got - again, they sounded more like the D:OS2 characters to me than the characters I knew and loved from past BG games.

tl;dr: Kind of disappointed with what I've seen so far, game doesn't really look or feel like "Baldur's Gate" to me. Larian might yet win me over, or if I go back to D:OS2 at some point and really love it the second time around then I might revise my opinion, but so far for me BG3 is just a let-down.

I've beaten Original Sin 2 about 3 times which is rare since I've never played a game more than once other than Baldur's Gate II, Dragon Age Origins and the Mass Effect series. I must admit that I was never a fan of the combat system in Original Sin 2 and Baldur's Gate 3 seems to have too many similarities but that's not enough to turn me off from the game. 

Somebody above said that they should reference the Bhaalspawn as a good god and I can't disagree more. That would invalidate my playthrough since I played an evil Bhaalspawn.

Although To be honest, I really don't care that much anyway since the Bhaalspawn was canonized as Abdel Adrian in the Forgotten Realms. I actually want new characters, It would be nice to see Viconia again though. 

I suppose that's the crux of the problem.

I've seen a lot of people saying "Oh, I loved D:OS2 so I'm sure I'll love this!" Some of them have played the original BG games, some of them haven't.

I haven't seen anyone who didn't care for OS2 for whatever reason saying "Well, I didn't personally like OS2 but I love Baldur's Gate and I'm sure this game is going to be incredible!" The best I've seen is "well, so far it looks a lot like OS2 but a lot could change by the time the game's released so I'm not going to say it's not for me yet."

And that to me says that you've kind of failed to make a Baldur's Gate game. So far it looks like Divinity: Baldur's Gate. It might be a great game for people who are into Divinity, but for people who aren't but do enjoy Baldur's Gate, this is kind of a let-down based on what we've seen so far. Indeed, I've seen a few people saying "Okay, I love Divinity and I love Baldur's Gate, but this doesn't look like what I'd want BG3 to be, it looks like what I might want D:OS3 to be."

If you're a big fan of D:OS2 and you think that you're really gonna love this game as a result then I do hope you get a good game out of it. But so far it looks like it's not really for me, which is just a bit sad for me personally. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but those are my first impressions.

The problem is that there are no companies out there that would make a good Baldur's Gate 3 game other than Larian Studios and maybe CD Projekt Red. When Bioware made Baldur's Gate they were a great company and continued making great games like the Mass Effect trilogy and Dragon Age but after EA got them they are nothing like they used to be. For a time they were the best at making choice/consequense games but that is no longer the case.

Baldur's Gate III is bound to have some similarities to Original Sin 2 since it's made by the same company but I trust that they will be true to previous Baldur's Gate games. 

Obsidian still exist. They made Pillars of Eternity, which I haven't yet finished having only actually acquired it recently, but feels like a faithful spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

Unfortunately the problem there as I understand it is that while the original sold well, Pillars of Eternity 2 had very disappointing sales, and nobody is really sure why because it's still very well-reviewed by both professional critics and regular players. If the reviews had been disapppointing then they could at least have pointed at something and gone "well, clearly this is where we went wrong", but without any real evidence as to why the sales were poor there's unlikely to be a PoE3 because it could be another inexplicable flop. But I'd still have loved to see an Obsidian take on BG3 if WotC had been willing to give them the licence.

From Unevent:

I've seen a lot of people saying "Oh, I loved D:OS2 so I'm sure I'll love this!" Some of them have played the original BG games, some of them haven't.

I haven't seen anyone who didn't care for OS2 for whatever reason saying "Well, I didn't personally like OS2 but I love Baldur's Gate and I'm sure this game is going to be incredible!" The best I've seen is "well, so far it looks a lot like OS2 but a lot could change by the time the game's released so I'm not going to say it's not for me yet."

And that to me says that you've kind of failed to make a Baldur's Gate game.

Well I have an unusual take I guess, since I entirely avoided Divinity games on purpose. I checked the 1st one on release in case it would be what I seek and do not find, and then forgot all about it; without berating their merits, I just don't feel like spending time on these games. So when I saw the Baldur's Gate III video, it was actually an original game with an original engine to me. I thought it was very genuine about respecting D&D lore, and seemed to fit quite well to the 5th edition mechanics according to the limited knowledge of them that I have. (I'm a 2nd edition person but don't mind updating to 5th if there's an incentive.)

I also read afterwards that when D:OS2 was in early access, it had all the icons and appearances of the first game, like BG3 with D:OS2 currently. That's a development trick to get a first playable version faster to increment on. But I guess that means they are indeed using the same base tech, even though they said they had to improve a lot, which should mean that in the end, there should be quite a few similarities regardless ?

Not having played Divinity, I can't say I care either way beyond the turn-based annoyance, and my interest is on the world, on thought provoking stories that aren't a blockbuster's recipe a thousand times reused, on the emotional intensity, immersion, atmosphere, realism and depth of characters and events, tasteful humour that fits the tone, etc., the list goes on. All of this requires maximal coherence or it quickly falls apart as far as I'm concerned. Wanking the player won't do. Targeting a 15yo audience rather than adults can't do. Planescape Torment level of fascination will do.

The good news is that according to the following quote and others, they're at least trying, so I'm sympathetic towards Larian. It's beyond difficult to implement an intent faithfully, though, I can only hope they'll succeed:

"What we didn't want is to have mind flayers become just a thing that you kill," he says. "We're treating them as something very eldritch, very otherworldly... Part of that means going through the history of them and seeing what makes them tick and what they want. The way that they communicate with people in the lore is often to seduce and cajole. They kind of figure out what makes you tick and they play on it. They gaslight people. But at the same time, they don't really understand us in the same way we don't understand them. If someone's writing a mind flayer and making it a little too communicable, it's like, 'make it stranger, and think of it as almost machine-like. It's a device that's kind of inside you and reading you.' It's hard to get exactly right."

Larian is treating other creatures you encounter in similar ways, too. The goal, Smith says, is to give every character in the world more depth than just a stat sheet, race, and class. That even goes for the monsters. Most of them will have something to say, even if you're probably going to end up fighting them.

Smith gives an example: "Our goblins have a lot to say. They're not just these mobs that you kill for experience. They can be [sometimes], but so can the humans or the tieflings. We're finding these aspects, which are all taken directly from the lore. You read about goblins in Volo's Guide, there's a culture there we can explore and do some interesting things with."

Finally, gameplay is also very important but I'll leave it to them. I would just hope that dialogue can be more than dialogue and verge into the realm of a roleplay feature, like Planescape Torment's was. So far it seems to have potential, but answers sound limited to one-liners, and not many of them either. I guess cutting down on text is a sacrifice to be made to reach a larger audience...

If by this you refer to choices that close doors, these tend to push metagame on the player, which breaks immersion, which is pretty bad thing to do in a Role Playing Game. If I know there's a chance I'll realise that one path would have been more fun to walk than the one I picked, then I am incited to think carefully and burden myself with metagame forward thinking. I'd rather like Baldur's Gate III to keep me fully immersed at all times without a fear that my only playthrough will be 75% the fun it could have been if I made better choices. It's not like such a crutch is needed to make a story or universe that the player will walk through feeling like they are making their own path.

Ah, fabled Divinity Original Sin 3: Curse of the kidnapper Illithid. Can't wait for the new D:OS installment. Just the thing I wanted out of my beloved Baldur's Gate franchise. Ok. Real talk. I kinda liked Divinity: Orginal Sin. 1st part much more than the 2nd (barring ZixZax), but I found both of them somewhat enjoyable. The thing is: Divinity is like an apple and Baldur's Gate is like a chocolate. And it doesn't matter that I'm fine with eating apples, I'll be pissed if you promise me chocolate and give me one old REHASHED apple instead. Good thing Baldur's Gate will never bore me thanks to the modding community,  otherwise I might have to play this new doppleganger. What I'd like out of the new BG:3 is real time with pause and less of Larian corny humor. That's why I am disappointed in advance. As my friend noted - the only good thing about BG3 is the fact it's set in the Forgotten Realms.