Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
They went for BG3 and the Forgotten Realms (and some folks here seem to forget that BG is just a city in the Forgotten Realms, not the setting itself, the Forgotten Realms is the brand), because they are huge fans of D&D, BG, and the Forgotten Realms, they didn't need this IP, they have their own hugely profitable IP, they WANTED this IP for the love of it.

You're of course free to hold to your rosy view of Larian, and I'll hold to mine.

But you are dead wrong about the name Baldur's Gate. Yes it is just a city in that setting, but in the context of videogames it is the legal title of a videogame IP franchise. So a game titled "Baldur's Gate 3" is by definition linked to games titled "Baldur's Game 1" and "Baldur's Gate 2", whereas it is NOT linked to games titled "Icewind Dale" or "Neverwinter Nights" even though those games are also D&D Forgotten Realms games because those games are not part of the "Baldur's Gate" IP franchise. So this discussion has ZERO to do with a game being a D&D game or a Forgotten Realms game. It is about placing this game within the "Baldur's Gate" franchise.


Not only are they linked by name but the storyline itself revolves around the Bhaalspawn exclusively. Even Beamdog stuck to the beaten path with Siege of Dragonspear (parts of which I thoroughly enjoyed). We will never know what the original tentative Baldur's Gate 3 would have looked like because it was canceled (I don't put too much stock in the design docs because it's no guarantee they would have stuck with the proposed setting). The only way I can see BG3 moving on from the Bhaalspawn saga is if it pays sufficient homage to 1 and 2 and draws on the events from those games in order to introduce a new setting and new characters.