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

Of course it had been better without the "3" in the name.
No one would argue, players would only speak and hype about the new Larian D&D game.

Call it BG "3" was a great mistake.
The 3 is only important for all old fans
Baldur's Gate can be Baldur's Gate without this 3 (such Dark Alliance was)

Cause it was 20 years ago and playing computer games was a thing for nerds maybe? Anyways it was sold alot.

Noone is complaining about that, it's more about the feeling and style that's different. And to debate about Black Hound which was never even close to finish is a bit... Useless

Of course it is disgusting. I dont defend this... but it happens. And it affects a lot to the companies. I think It will be a great game even I dont like what they are doing. Ill play it and ill enjoy it as much as I can. But fanbase use to dont like companies messing with their favourite things and, if they dont change anything, without any communication... im sure it will happend. Just from the commercial point of view will be wise to communicate and explain.

Uhm, to be fair the name Baldur´s gate is the name of a city in a setting of the game D&D created by Wizards of the Coast, a tabletop game created in 1974, with 40 years of story, not only the name of two (incredible) games.
And they let Larian get the license from WOTC to create a game after refusing several game studios all over the years, so they have all the right to call the game Baldur´s Gate 3, Divinity Baldur´s Gate Sin or whatever they fancy.

Sven Vincke, Mike Myers and Adam Smith were really forthright since the first interview, months ago, stating that they want to make a D&D5e game, using an improved version of the game engine of DOS; not based in the first games. Sven didn´t even know the endings of the first game when they asked him in an interview; They always answer with the same: "We will use the canon WOTC ending of the crisis of the baalspawn"; The origins of the game will be in the D&D Adventures "Murders in Baldur´s gate" and "Descent into Avernus" (no mention of the BG games whatsoever) so the things showed in the gameplay were not that surprising.

I think It was never meant to be based in the old games from the start.




The Beamdog's BG series remasters are from a few years ago, tho. They still sold well enough, even spawning a brand new expansion for the game (without the quality of the original, but still not a bad CRPG).

Didnt sven say Baldurs gate was one of his favortie video games?
what do you mean he didnt know the endings?

>Canon ending
tbh still one of those thingst hat pisses me off.
Im not that big a BG fan, but nobody in their right mind would consider the official ending good. That book its based on had absoluteley nothing to do with the game it was based on, and risking to mirror the angry people in this forum here, had very little respect for it, changing a lot of the characters, disregarding the actual video game protagonist and so on, turning Minsc into a Redhead...

Baldur's Gate is the name of the city, but it's also the name of a specific game series. The Baldur's Gate being referred to in Larian's poorly-named "BG3" is not the city, it's the game series.

There are many games featuring Baldur's Gate and having "Baldur's Gate" in their titles yet are not claimed to be part of the original Baldur's Gate PC RPG series. Larian should likewise title their game featuring Baldur's Gate something that doesn't claim it to be a part of the original PC RPG series, because Larian's D&D DOS formula game is not representative of the original Baldur's Gate PC game series.

No one cares Baldur's Gate is the name of a city.
Bg2 never took place on this city and is still consider better as the 1st.

Anse no onee said they don't have the juridic rights to call this BG3... Just saying it's an insult to those who honor this VIDEO GAME for 20years to call it BG "3".
Without them the name of BG was forgotten.

And hey... WoTC had not CREATED D&D (and hadn't buy the society of the creators when BG came out...)
This is just for your informations.

BG "3" IS a dream for a lot for many years and Larian took this dreams just for them.
(Because I don't doubt they are fans, but they have more interrests for BG"3" to seems a lot like their babies... Other fans don't care).

I brought it up to point out to anyone arguing that this new Baldur's Gate 3 is not Baldur's Gate as if they are the authority can still be debated, as the original BG3, like the new one, would have no plot connection with the prequels, and unlike the new BG3, be set too far away from the city Baldur's Gate for it to be an explorable location. It's not just the feeling and style. There hasn't been a completely new Baldur's Gate game in 20 years. It's inevitably going to be a little jarring for some veteran BG players to play a new BG game that looks somewhat like Dragon Age and Divinity: Original Sin. Would you prefer BG3 looked like the failed D&D game Sword Coast Legends?

Ok so Baldur's Gate 3 could looks somewhat like DAO (yeh ?) and DOS, but if there is nothing from Baldur's Gate there are no problems...
(not speaking about graphics or something like that, of course things have to change in 20 years).

There is a mistake don't you think ?

Not from my perspective. The mistake is believing something is wrong with Baldur's Gate looking like an improved version of the games it inspired. Keep in mind that Dragon Age and Divinity are basically spiritual successors of Baldur's Gate, much like the Mighty No.9 game was a spiritual successor to the Mega Man games. Mega Man came out with a brand new game last year, Mega Man 11, and it looks similar to Mighty No.9. But like Sword Coast Legends, Mighty No.9 is a failed and forgotten game. There hasn't been a new Mega Man game since 2010, so Mega Man 11 is a welcomed addition. Why is Baldur's Gate 3 getting some flak? The style should not be an issue, just sayin'.

Ok for Dragon Age but Divinity (original sin I guess) a succesor of BG ? Can't see anything in common except it's RPG...

The same is going to happen if World of Warcraft 2 is not a MMORPG...
It would have been the same if Diablo 3 were not a Hack and Slash...
The same if DoS 3 is not TB...
The same if TES6 is not on Tamriel.
The same if BG3 is not in Forgotten Realms or don't use D&D rules...

Of course players want to find the spirit of their previous loved games in the next episode.
We are talking about a video game experience, in which rules and universe are just a part of it.
Going back to the city + Bhaal (I suppose wathever the way) + rules is definitely not enough.

Not saying Larian can't do it but according to what we see (basics, elementary gameplay) they choose the easiest way and the most satisfying for THEM, not for BG fans.

Ah but the very creator of that game, Josh Sawyer, has very recently tweeted that he adamently opposed naming the game Baldur's Gate 3, and wanted it named just The Black Hound. But the publisher Interplay insisted that it be named BG3 to benefit their marketing of the game.

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.

I think the only criteria is:

Quality in hindsight.

So if it turns out good in the end and peoples can look back at it some time later with a fuzzy feeling then it is a worthy successor.

Judge? Well I can only speak for myself but I don't judge or dictate how the sequel should be (indeed, many feel this isn't so much a sequel as another game set in the same place as the Baldur's Gate games of the past). I offer my opinions, nothing more. Larian is free to (and will) do as they please. I have no illusions otherwise. Larian has provided this place to voice any concerns, opinions, thoughts, feelings, etc we may have on the subject of Baldur's Gate 3. If they find value or something of use in some of this feedback, great. If not, great.

I have concerns about how some things are implemented, but overall, none overly worth mentioning. My big concern, as my various posts can testify to, is that the '3' seems inappropriate to use, for reasons I've explained ad nauseum elsewhere (basic summary: using the '3' is an obvious and vulgar marketing tactic that they don't need to use, this game can easily sell itself using just the Baldur's Gate name alone, without the implication the '3' brings with it). Do I think I hold some rights that should be heeded and acted upon? Nope. If Larian decides to stick with the '3' (or is well past being able to do anything about it), cool, I've said my piece.

I still intend, at present, to buy and play this upon final release anyway...unless some kind of Sword Coast Legends-type catastrophe befalls it during development...then I shall not buy it (but I find that scenario quite unlikely given Larian's pedigree).

I don't see the point criticizing the "3" in BG3 without knowing more story details. The overarching game could tie into Bhaal's legacy in meaningful ways. The tabletop adventure that precedes this game features followers of The Dead Three of which Bhaal is a member.

Mind Flayers were already plotting to take over Faerun in BG2, perhaps the Mind Flayer in the opening is linked to that?

What we have is the first hour or so of the game that is basically teaching you mechanics. It is a prelude to the larger adventure to come. I don't see how it can be assumed that BG3 won't have enough in common with the previous two.

And at least we will actually be going to Baldur's Gate in BG3. In BG1 it took most of the game to get there, and in BG2 you never so much as step foot in the city.

Good points all, it may very well be premature...but we have no conclusive way of knowing one way or the other as yet. My own views are fed by what I've seen and what I've read. What sticks most for me is Swen's interview stating that BG3 is "very much its own thing'. I'm not saying it's a perfect basis for my opinions, but it is what largely informs said opinion. But it is just that, merely an opinion. Hardly the threat some (not yourself) make it out to be, even if parroted by others.

This game, thus far (premature or not), feels less like a sibling to BG1/2 and more like a cousin. Certainly worthy of the Baldur's Gate name itself, but less so the '3'.

Ultimately, I'm not calling for a boycott or any such absurdity. This is still a game I intend to buy and play (minus the caveat I mentioned in an earlier post)....I just offer my 2 cents on the matter, nothing more.

Well, time will tell, and Early Access might provide some hints as to where the story is ultimately going. There was a line that Shadowheart said in the playthrough about being chased by dragons through Hell. I'm wondering if we will spot any familiar faces? lol.