There is this stance, being repeated and expressed in many different ways, (for over a year-since S3 facts became understood) which says we can't judge until we actually have Sacred 3 on the screen in front of us. This appears very reasonable, fair, and not being knee jerk . The idea, to wait and see, is valid in so many ways, it's hard to disagree.
If Betty Boop gained 400 pounds would we still want to see her in a brief slinky outfit singing her song-'I want to be loved by you, by you, and nobody else but you'? (in the cartoons..of course) It might be good for a laugh, and then she could put some clothes on, but most would no longer turn to her for entertainment if they'd paid to see Betty Boop. We could laugh at her for being an entirely different cartoon, but she would not be Betty Boop.
(We could add a horrible disfigurement from a car accident with Roger Rabbit driving that left half of her face removed. She can't walk because a leg is missing; so you won't be hiking and exploring the local park trails with her beside you. -Assuming you were a cartoon also, or were in a movie with cartoons... She can't dance, can't sing. They'll add the graphite blade soon, Warner Bros promises.... Oh, and she's now an idiot with an IQ of 62 because of brain damage from the accident- so there's no character to appreciate any longer, or chances to grow and experience variation in experience.. er uh...talk about a strained illustration.)
OK, crazy example- you don't know who Betty Boop is- try Mae West, or anyone. Jennifer Anniston? Tasteless examples, too crude; how about the comic book version of, As I Lay Dying done in 12 pages? Fear and Loathing without Las Vegas?
One could still say, we'll have to wait and see Betty Boop, or Mae West, Jennifer Anniston, or brouse all 12 pages of a Marvel adaptation of Faulkner- but there are some things you do not have to see first hand to know they've failed.
If S3 is a good game I'll believe those of you here who try it. But it won't be a good game in the Sacred series, it will be a good game with an ironic name, Sacred 3. No open world, no in-depth character development-that's not Sacred. It has about as much relationship to Sacred as John Lennon's tooth (now in private hands) does to musical genius. That is to say, not much, if any.
You can't remove fundemental features of a product, call it by the same name, and expect the same response from those who enjoyed the product before change. You shouldn't label it as the previous product.
What isn't fair is a company removing intrinsic features and then expecting you to be, 'fair'.
I want something Sacred to come along.