Personally, I'm fine with the Baldur's Gate name, it's the '3' that's gotta go. It neither warrants nor deserves it (the latter being my personal opinion). This game, with what we've seen up to now, is so disconnected from the Bhaalspawn saga that the '3' is little more than an obvious and vulgar marketing gimmick.
The damn shame of it is, this game doesn't need it. Again going on what I've seen, this game can do perfectly fine without succumbing to cheap marketing. Hell, I want to play it (in it's final/finished form at least).
My approach at present (which I admit fully is subject to change with new, official, information) is thus: 99% I will be buying this game upon it's final release (not touching early access, I deplore what 'early access' has devolved into over the years). If it releases with the '3' still attached to the title, I'll play it, and if it has no connection to the Bhaalspawn narrative (minus name drops, thematic similarities or just NPCs being there...as these can be done just as easily, or more so, with a game set in the same region without being part of previous narratives)...then at that point, I'll not buy another Larian product again, and recommend the same should I ever be asked.
Larian is a talented studio, they're good at what they do. I may find some of their work unpalatable (ceaseless tongue-in-cheek narratives for instance), but there's no denying they make solid, good games. They DO NOT need this disgusting marketing tactic of attaching their game to the legacy of two of the greatest CRPGs ever made. This game can stand perfectly well (and profitably) on its own, perhaps creating a new legacy.
Calling this Baldur's Gate: Something Interesting would, I think, solve a great deal. The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games existed and did not cause the sky to fall, so too it can be with this. Calling this Baldur's Gate 3 is just lazy. I think Larian can do better than that. It remains to be seen if they can.
