I really don't understand how name is such a big deal for people. I'm hardcore Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 fan. I played them when they first came out and I've played them and EE versions on and off for two decades. However, I don't think I own "Baldur's gate" brand and get to say how the next game must be. I'm curious, where do people get this notion that it's their right to judge how the sequel must be like? Does playing some game a lot over the years give me right to dictate exactly how it must continue?
To my knowledge there is no globally accepted set rules that sequels must follow to be considered legitimate. Could somebody point me to the criteria?
Without so many fans making mods, unofficial patches for the games etc. on top of sales figures over the past two decades would they have even bothered with a BG3? The whole point of a series is to carve out a niche/market that is a steady source of income as you make sequels. It only makes sense to size up your fans and listen to their feedback (otherwise you will start to bleed customers). Obviously they're taking their chances here and trying to expand the fan base. That's why there is pushback but I'm fairly certain they knew this was going to happen.
