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

Yeah, I was so angry that BG2 was not an adventure in Baldur's Gate ! It is not even in the same country ! It takes place in and around Athkatla, a city in the country of Amn. I am just joking of course.

The full name of the game was Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, since it has an expansion, but everyone just calls it BG2 and no one cares that it is not really a story about Baldur's Gate. To be fair though, it was a direct continuation of the story of BG1.

BG3 uses the same universe, same region as BG1, it uses the same lore which includes some core issues (the 3 evil gods) from BG 1 & 2.
I recommend the Youtuber Harbs Narbs who summarizes the clues : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD7GydJQaD7Lnaew1RYsdpw/videos

Sure, Larian could add a subtitle as the OP suggest. Why not. If it can appease some.

All = quite false. I am 48, played D&D since I was about 16 and my "old" friends (40+ years old) and I played BG1 and 2... and we do not mind the BG3 name, we love the 5th edition of D&D, etc.

The issue is that Baldur's Gate as an IP is more defined then the setting or system. It's a bit like Mass Effect - certain things just come to mind.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with BG3 being what it is - not every RPG continues the story directly with every installement, not every sequel keeps the gameplay loop the same. Still, there is certain expactations that come with the game being called BG3.

Luckily for me, I am slowely managing to decouple BG3 from BG1&2. Good looking gameplay demos help a lot with that.

This would be true for actual novels/stories completely seperate from any game as well.

As I posted to someone else in another forum: Can a new story take into account and build upon what happened there (as it has been stated by Larian it will using the 'canonically accepted' outcome version I believe) and build on the foundation that was the Bhaalspawn story 100+ years in the past? Absolutely it can, and a good story writer could probably come up with a myriad of ways of writing a sequel story for any starting chain of events that were covered in the first 2 novels that is born out of the events of what came before and the affectations it may have had, but also doesn't go back and continue or change anything to do with that closed loop. The only 'interconnecting tissue' is the label for the starting/foundational setting here, which is Baldur's Gate - and even then, BG2 itself is illegitimate by the standard many are trying to bring to bear since you never actually go back to the city itself there either.

Gameplay mechanics differential aside, the story is the central foundation, and while sure, its unlikely Larian/WotC would be going back and adding to, much less changing, what most consider to be a closed loop series of events in the smaller 'Bhaalspawn saga' storyline involving BG, there's nothing that says the greater story of events and affectations in the world coming out of that closed loop can't be built upon with further interconnecting story. We simply have to wait and see awhile after launch what the truth depth of that interconnection with the original saga actually is.

This ☝️

There are artists and then there are one-trick ponies who don't have the skill to even make diverse art. And the latter work at Larian, where every game looks the same. If you want to see a game studio that knows how to diversify their art direction, look at CDPR, for example. I wish they'd attempted BG3, but they're busy with the next holy grail of gaming currently.

"Baldur's Gate 3: The Trove of Narlen Darkwalk"

Yes, yes! Only the Baldur's Gate franchise can do this.

Regardless of who's to 'blame' I still think they should have gone with Baldur's Gate: [Insert title here]

It still strikes me as incredibly lazy to just name it Baldur's Gate 3, and it's almost certainly just a marketing scheme from WotC / Hasbro. Nevertheless, we're a bit past the point of changing anyone's mind about it, I think.

Yes I agree this was a missed opportunity. "BGIII: <subtitle>" would have calmed a lot of currently-angry BGI/II fans while also staying true to the naming style set by BGII: SoA.

I don't know that I'd call it a 'missed opportunity', but this is at least an idea I can get behind as opposted to people just drawing a line in the sand and insisting 'it shouldn't carry the Baldur's Gate name'. I thought something similar (subtitle) in the midst of reading all the various kerfuffle the past few months in various places, given BG2 also doesn't involve BG technically at all and at least does reference the area its based around.

It's also not impossible that, before release, Larian might reveal they're doing this....but we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I´m not going to say anything about the name ( pointless debate ever) but if we´re talking about artwork, the character, creature and armour/weapons design in the game are almost exactly the same as in the official artbooks of D&D from WotC.

Just google it.

"Divinity VI: Zandiwoop's Gate, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Rivellon." That should keep everyone happy, as long as it keeps the freckly elf.

And here is mind devourer added.

This game has nothing Bg in it .
Is a Dos3 thing riding on Bg name . Thats all - marketing

Not saing i will not play , but is not baldurs for me . Is dos3 .

I´m not going to discuss about your feels and your preferences, but for anyone that watched the gameplays and follow the info about the use of D&D5e in the game and played DoS games it´s obvious that there are many differences in design, rules, mechanics, combat, lore, etc with other games from the same studio.

Other than the fact it uses the same lore and background history as the Baldur's Gate series and universe ?
If you only said it was not a BG continuation, that would be fair, BUT...

you are saying it is a DOS3, but with ZERO lore/concepts/names/characters from DOS and in the Forgotten Realms universe, with D&D characters, D&D abilities/skills !?

You can rationally say it is not BG, fair enough, but saying it is DOS3 is utter lack of thought.

Can you give us clear examples of what is the same as DOS in BG3 ? I will answer for you because I am not hopeful:
a) some visuals and textures may look the same to some eyes (I am not convinced) ;
b) similar camera angles and viewpoint ;
and c) some interactions with the environment, like a fire spell setting oil on fire.
Period.

There are a series of questions I ask over on the Steam forums every single time someone says BG3 is DOS3.

1. How many action points does it take to move?
2. How many action points does it take to attack?
3. How many rounds of cooldown would you need to wait before you can cast a fireball spell a second time?
4. Where in Rivellon is the city of Baldur's Gate located?
5. Who has access to Source in the Forgotten Realms?

Every single time I ask these questions I'm either insulted or they double down and never make any attempt to answer any of the questions. The answers are very basic and simple. No action points to move or attack because D&D 5E, and BG3 don't use action points whereas DOS does, there are no cool-down rounds for using spells and abilities, only spell slots, Rivellon is not the Forgotten Realms and Source is not a thing.

Of course, answering these questions always disproves the very premise that BG3 is DOS3 so no one ever answers them when they're also saying BG3 is DOS.

Just add... What D&D race of elves are plants?