I have no wish for Larian to change their game, but certainly the title by dropping the '3'. It doesn't warrant it. Baldur's Gate: Inspired Title absolutely, but that '3' just does not belong. This game seems (thus far) to be taking a very similar overall approach in terms of its technical design; it's a CRPG, it's party-based single-player, it's D&D and I've no doubt Larian carries the spirit of it with them through the design of this....but it is not a sequel and does not deserve the '3' in its title.
They've stated as much themselves, this game's story stands very much on its own. There may be in-game talk of what happened the 100 years prior during the Bhaalspawn saga, maybe a few NPCs that were present and/or involved in it will be party members or NPCs here (though Larian has been understandably cagey about that so far)...but it is not a sequel. Nothing, thus far, suggests it even remotely is. In fact I've found it to be quite the opposite, much of the interviews have been very, very careful to avoid inferring a sequel but are quite clear about it being its own thing.
I have no doubt I will play this game. How I feel about its gameplay and such I won't know until I'm playing it...but I do know I deplore the obvious and vulgar marketing of using the '3' in the title when it really doesn't need it.
Use the Baldur's Gate name to carry on the spirit, but that '3' needs to go. To do anything less is to spit on the legacy upon which you're trying to profit from.
