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?
I have to 2nd this.
Why name it Baldur's Gate 3, if it doesn't have a connection with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?
Just because it plays around Baldurs Gate?
Like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance which could just as well be named Westor: Dark Alliance, if it played in Westor instead of Baldur's Gate.
That wasn't the defining characteristic of the old games. The 2nd game and most of the add-ons didn't even play in or near Baldur's Gate. What connected the old games where the characters and the story of the Bhaalspawn. If Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have anything to do with that, it really shouldn't be called Baldurs Gate 3.
There are many Dnd games that share the same background world as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, without borrowing the name. Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pool of Radiance, Sword Coast Legends to name a few. They each had their own story, but they all took place in the world of Faerun.
So why not give your game, your story, its own name. Like: Yartar: The Mindflayer Saga. Ceremorphosis or Mind the Tadpole
I mean your got a Spelljammer, the origin of Illithids, planartravel, dragon riding Githyanki, a Vampire Spawn. So much content to create your own story around and write your own sage. And although many of those things did have an appearance in Baldurs Gate 1 and 2, unless they are connected to the characters and storytelling of the old Baldur's Gate games, they have absolutely nothing to do with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.
I know its probably to late for that but please unless your extending the Bhaalspawn Saga or tell new and exiting stories of its beloved characters there is no reason to name your game Baldurs Gate 3.
Last edited by vometia; 04/03/2003:01 AM. Reason: fixed the quote - v.
