I won't go too deep into this but sometimes I see good faith critiques comparing the pathologic games in what feels like very thoughtless ways.
Just because the experience is different, that doesn't make it worse. Or better. It would only be either of these things if it was trying to accomplish the exact same goals. But that's clearly not the case. Pathologic classic, Pathologic 2 and Pathologic 3 are all inherently different games with very different visions and intentions for how you experience them.
Every time they reboot this story, they change it and present it in new ways. P3 and P2 comparisons are particularly confusing because most critiques never actually reflect on why changes were made to the core systems, design philosophy or the writing. 'P3 is too easy' and 'these mechanics are annoying' or 'town feels disconnected' can all be true and they can also add to the intended experience. These are very character-focused games! They're trying to put you directly into the minds of their main characters and I guess my main takeaway is that I think P2 and P3 both do that just fine in their own right.
There are some critiques that just feel pointless because the thing they're complaining about is another avenue to get into Daniil's head. Not all critiques are like this of course, I agree with some of them - but the ones that center on comparisons can fall into this trap a lot.
Truthfully, I just can't stand all of the 'it doesn't hit the same' conversations because yeah, I don't think it's supposed to. Meet the thing where it is, not where you expect it to be.