Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I don't accept the "WotC made us do it" line. From all of Swen's interviews it is clear he wants to make a game with the "BG3" title.

Multiple people / companies approached WotC about making BG3. When they wanted to make BG3, they called Swen to see if he was still interested in doing so. If they wanted BG: Subtitle, that could easily have been a condition.


Originally Posted by kanisatha
"Baldur's Gate: subtitle" would have been the ethically proper way to go here

I don't recall any ethics debates over Fallout 3's name, etc. Lots of game / movie / book series have used numbers without being a direct continuation of previous entries.


Originally Posted by kanisatha
If it were BG: blah blah, I wouldn't care about the game at all and would ignore the game as a game not for me, much like I did with BG:DA.

If nothing at all about the game could possibly interest you by any other name, doesn't that prove it was a good choice of name?

Yes a VERY good choice ... if your goal is to falsely lure people to your game.

Also, Fallout 3 was made by the same company that made Fallout 1 and 2, and that company never said they were making Fallout 3 as a game that completely ignored the legacy of the first two games. Furthermore, nothing I've said has anything to do with BG not being a "direct continuation" of the first two games. Nobody expects any version of BG3 to be a direct continuation of the first two games because that story is over. I am speaking of BG3 being made in the same spirit as the first two games, i.e. new story, new characters, new timeline, but where someone who played the first two games would find the third game to be familiar in how it plays. So you are creating a strawman here.