Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Better without the Baldur's Gate name?

I've been reading a lot of forum posts and social media regarding this game and I've come to wish that they hadn't gotten the Baldur's Gate name but instead got the license to make a new D&D game.
The game looks amazing right now and I know it'll be good because it's Larian, but with the BG name it's going to be compared to the old ones and I don't think it'll ever be able to live up to the expectations that people will have for that. They're just too high to ever be reached.

Most of the major complaints I see with the game has to do with it not being like the original Baldur's Gate.
Not being RWtB like the original, the atmosphere being different, the characters, the humour, the music and so on. It seems like 90% of the negative comments have to do with it not seeming like a Baldur's Gate game (which is completely fair criticism).

It's a shame that a game that's bound to be amazing will get a lot of hate and people passing on it simply because of the name.

I get that having Baldur's Gate written on it automatically gets it a lot of press and attention, but Larian is already big and D&D is huge right now, so I'm not sure it's needed.
I believe that if it was just a D&D game they'd have much freer reins and less disappointed fans right now. As someone who hasn't played the original games the title doesn't really do anything for me. I don't know if the name itself lures in people who aren't fans of the original game, but if it doesn't then it's aimed at original fans who'd have a high chance of wanting to play any D&D game anyway.

Just to clarify that this isn't a rant about people being disappointed with the game. I believe that the game should feel like a successor if it's going to claim to be one. I'm just wondering if everyone would be happier if it wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3?

It is a comment full of common sense.
Especially since in an interview, Sven Vincke assumes to use the Baldur's Gate franchise to attract players while continuing to do D: OS because that's what Larian can do.

Indeed, it would have been better if this game did not bear the name of Baldur's Gate and even less of Baldur's Gate 3.

It will backfire on them anyway.

I think they should know of what happens in Metacritic if they dont listen the fanbase.

If they would called it "Baldur's Gate: [insert here subtitle]" everyone would be so happy and everything was solved. Or at least, as I said in other post, they should communicate they are listening the complains.

Let's start a thread with possible alternative names.

BG: Enemy Within

BG: Enemy Without

BG: A Gathering of Darkness

BG: Dawn of the Mind

BG: the Call of Illensine

BG: the Mind's Rule

BG: the Shadow over Faerun

BG: the Shadow of the Future

Review bombing of past games to complain about the existing one is disgusting.

I can't wait for the game to hit steam and immediately make more money than BG2 ever did.

Is envy the only sentiment driving you?

I would have been fine if they had a different name from the start but im also fine with a 3. The game follows what is happening in the events of BG after 1&2 and the expanded world. This makes a lot more sense to me that what was going to happen with Black Isles planned BG3.

I dont see the name hurting sales other than review bombing but my understanding is that steam blocks refunded games from affecting the number so that will be a nice $60 review bomb or MW2 boycott situation. Meta critic also is kinda known for people not paying attention to users if the narrative is people are review bombing. Even more than that it will bring in a TON of new people. i have friends in my D&D groups super excited for this who were hesitant it would be like old IE games.

I understand the criticism to and extent (i think most of the screaming is by people who define BG by RTwP and are looking for anything to hate) but its also WAY over blown to the point where its really starting to seem like some people are going to need therapy/ have already talked about it with their therapist. I have loved some of the constructive criticism discussions ive had with people on a variety of forums and even got a few people interested who were sad it wasnt going to be what they expected and ive found certain places dying down to the point where its the same few people screaming and not a majority up roar which hopefully means it will die down and conversation will be able to be had and some issues can be addressed in EA

I really cant wait for this to happen

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.

Curious about how you feel about BG3: The Black Hound. Ive read a good amount on what that game was supposed to be and it was incredibly far from anything resembling BG1/2 despite being the same team. I understand the sentiment and not going to hold it against anyone who doesnt like the 3 involved but im really curious how those same fans would react to what was supposed to be 3 before the studio shut down. As far as we can tell the game will be mostly connected to Novels and the events of the module which seems to take place about 100years after 2 and 12 years after the death of the Cannon ward of Gorion and Bhaalspawn.

My feelings and sentiments of Black Isle's BG3 were the same as these. Actually even more incredulous to be honest. Black Isle had made Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment....they proved their mettle in designing their own games in that style. The idea they would make a new game and call it BG3 when it had ZERO connection of any kind to BG1/2 when they had absolutely no good reason to do so (though in hindsight it was an obvious attempt to try and save their studio from destruction...which was inevitable anyway given how Interplay was disappearing so completely up its own buttocks)...well, I can say I'm glad that game never saw completion.

I doubt very much Larian is facing its own destruction here and that using the name 'Baldur's Gate 3' is a last, desperate attempt to save their studio.

It seems petty, even to me, to want that '3' gone from the title of this game, I admit. It isn't so much about the title itself. There are plenty of such sequels out there with a number after the title that have utterly nothing to do with what came before, in games and film, so it's not some unprecedented thing. I'd just like to think Larian has enough confidence in their own product that they don't need that '3' to make this successful. The Baldur's Gate name alone is enough and actually serves the purpose of honoring the legacy and acting as a "What's next?" The '3' is just....well I've said it, obvious and vulgar.

You know what?

You get all 8 of you people who complain about this to write a specific list of what you think Baldurs Gate 3 should be.

If you can agree on what a proper sequal to Baldurs Gate 3 would be,t hat you, in your glorious wisdom would bestow the title upon (even tho it is not yours to give), THEN maybe ill consider your argument.


Go, compile a list.
And if a single one of you disagrees with a sinlge nitpick another one of you has, you go back to the drawing board.

GO

Will it, though? Let's be honest who of all the old players is still around to play roleplaying games? How important are they for Larian, after they earned so much money with the D:OS-games? Are those the people that bought Original Sin 1 and 2 and thought "gee, I would love to see Baldur's Gate 3 by those people, so I buy their games and hope that they do it like in the old days?" Or are the buyers people that loved D:OS 1 and 2 and now will buy BG3 too, since they get more of what they love? I don't think, that the old fans are that important anymore, because it has been 19 years since the last entry in the series and the only people that still think of the game as relevant are a few hardcorefans and journalists. But because it is a Larian-game, the series might spark some new interest.

Baldurs Gate 1 was my first favorite game ever and I still have a soft spot for it. But it hasn't aged as gracefully as 2 and Throne of Bhaal got really rushed after the fist half of the game. Baldur's Gate 2 was the best, but only because it was already streamlined and linear and more of a collection of shortstories and more of sidestory than part of the actual Bhaalspawn-story. The mainquest was never as great as we remember it and other games have shown that you can be better. And now Baldur's Gate 3 will show it hopefully again. Let the past rest and enjoy the future, people.

Thanks, great answer. Honestly with this im just looking for consistancy and an idea where certain people may stand in "what makes a BG game" and you definitely have it. Time will tell how well its connected and what it really means. it seems to be a continuation of the world but not sure the story. I really hope we do see maybe some things of how the Baalspawn affected the world and informed the events that get us here.

Baldur's Gate: Attack of the ManChildren

I couldn’t agree more with OP.

Actually, even if i've played to old BG games, i'm not a "Nostalgia guy", in general...
I'm here because i know Larian make absolutely loving RPG ( and the only ones who provide good toolset / GM mode ) , and if i was, at the beginning not against a BG title by them, i'm actually worrying about how toxic fandoms will respond to the game, knowing they'll NEVER be satisfied ( i've already how they can be relentless to destoy a game they dont like, even if the game is basically good, just not "for them" , with Fallout saga just for the example ).

Review bombing, endless bad buzz.... peoples, especially old bitter angry geeks can be awfull now on internet.

And larian 's a small studio, i dont know if they can get out of this kind of bullying without serious repercussions.

This is why, since i'm not so attached to BG saga, i'll prefer finally if this game was an another D&D game without a famous name. It would keep away all those raging people.

BG will stay dead, but honestly, i dont care ( like i dont care either if it's revive ), i just want Larian continue to do wonderfull games like DoS2, and i'm afraid of the futur for them if this last game got over-criticized ( even more if it's just because of expectations that cannot be met , because they're they idealize too much an old game of their memory.. )

So yes, agreed with the OP, not for BG 's name but instead for Larian protection.

You're welcome.

From what I've gathered from various interviews and what was shown, I doubt there is any continuation of the narrative of BG1/2 of any kind. As you say, the world will most likely be a world in which the Bhaalspawn saga occurred, and what (if any) impact or lingering effects it continues to have 100 years later. There may be some NPCs from the original saga (party or just world NPCs) that are still around due to having long lifespans or magic, etc...but Mr. Vincke has as much stated in interviews, this is very much "its own thing", which to me, is a calculated and safe way of saying not to expect much in the way of connectivity to what happened before (and that's hardly fact, just my interpretation based on experience of hearing similar statements about past games and movies).

I should state this, clearly, that this is indeed a game I want to buy and play. How I will ultimately judge it (for myself) remains unknown until I can play the completed version. I've no wish to belabor the point, but I don't feel that the '3' belongs on this game. This game will doubtless be strong enough on it's own to use the name Baldur's Gate without inherently implying a direct connection to BG1/2.

Seems that way. Not to mention, games like Pokemon and Fortnite make a ton of money but doesn't mean they're good games. And BG was made 20 years ago at a time when videogames were nowhere near what they are within society today. In contemporary society, videogames have surpassed movies in terms of total revenue generated. Comparing BG sales to anything today is completely asinine.

Changing the name will be a massive improvement. The only people not upset about it being called "BG3" are people who don't know or care about the Baldur's Gate series and just want DOS3. In no way is Larian's game Baldur's Gate 3, so it definitely should not be titled as such. This is sleazy exploitation and snake-oil to max.

Here are some other possible names:

Baldur's Gate: Shadows of Tentacles

Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus 2

Tentacles Over Baldur's Gate


But will Larian do the right thing and change the name? Swen stated their intention is to do a cash-grab by exploiting the fans of the BG name to try to make the DOS brand more popular - which is to say that Larian's "BG3" isn't about Baldur's Gate at all. It's just using the setting as a husk to shill for their own DOS brand:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214

Swen's quote:


Larian can still capitalize on the Baldur's Gate game while not marketing their DOS formula D&D game as the third part of the original PC Baldur's Gate Series. Since Larian's game has nothing to do with the eponymous PC Baldur's Gate series, it shouldn't be named as such.

The original Baldur's Gate 3, called "Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound" which got cancelled years ago, would have had absolutely nothing to do with the first two Baldur's Gate games either. On top of that, that game was going to be set far away from Baldur's Gate, in the Dalelands. At least this new Baldur's Gate 3 will be set in the city Baldur's Gate, unlike the original which would have been set in the lands Myth Drannor is located.