[
My first statement was: "But Larian aren't making anything that resembles the Baldur's Gate series in any way. So how can it be said that Larian are the most suitable developer to deliver precisely what they have no interest in delivering and are literally not even attempting to deliver?"
What should they have done to make it "resemble" BG aside from RTwP? And how can you state that so definitively when the game is in pre-alpha?
First, RTwP vs TB shapes a huge amount of the game design, including environmental design and a large amount of the game's experience.
But other than RTwP, Larian could have done at least something to make it resemble BG, but they did nothing - they just did a D&D DOS and called it a sequel because 'it's a party-based RPG, it has combat in it, it uses a D&D ruleset'. Larian have confirmed there isn't anything they can put their finger on that makes it a Baldur's Gate series game.
Larian's D&D game's executive producer, David Walgrave:
"So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D." "
Simply being a party-based game with colourful characters and having combat in it that is based on D&D rules... that doesn't make for a Baldur's Gate series game any more than being a first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things makes a game a DOOM series or a Half-Life series game. There are thousands of games that match Walgrave's description that don't use D&D rulesets, and there are loads of games that match that description using D&D rulesets that aren't titled as a part of the original PC Baldur's Gate series.
All Walgrave did is describe the most generic elements of a party-based RPG and say that's the extent of what makes him "think" their D&D DOS formula game counts as a sequel for the Baldur's Gate series. He literally couldn't come up with a single aspect of the game that would actually explain why it is being called "BG3".
But Swen explained why it is being called "BG3" elsewhere, when he said it was to promote their DOS formula and brand.
And doesn't it stand to reason that WotC knows Larian does turn based games, and that they (WotC) wanted it that way? That they chose Larian for the excellent job they did with a turn based game like DOS2 and expected something similar to be done with BG3?
Walgrave state that the choice to do TB was theirs alone.
Calling it a cashgrab is unfounded. If you think no good effort is being made to make a great game, then I can see why you might think so. But nothing Larian has done, especially with DOS2, shows they don't care about the product they put out. Quite the opposite.
It isn't unfounded, though. There is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series, and Larian have stated they aren't taking any risks or conforming to Baldur's Gate gameplay, but are using the Baldur's Gate name to promote Larian's DOS style of game and hopefully get more people playing their DOS games. The choice to name their D&D game "Baldur's Gate 3" instead of something else is a cash-grab.
