Being forthright? As somebody who is an avid fan of the original Baldur’s Gate PC games, I can say, without a doubt, that this is not a Baldur’s Gate game, by any stretch of the imagination. While I understand that this game was not marketed to be, nor intended to be a direct continuation of the Bhallspawn storyline, I would hope there to be a reasonable tie-in. On the overall, though, as a game, BGIII feels separated in every form and fashion from the actual Baldur’s Gate franchise, which leads me into what is undoubtedly my biggest overall complaint. BGIII is not a Baldur’s Gate game, it is “Larian Studios brings you Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms”. From storyline to gameplay, the only thing in common I see between this game and the originals is that it takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting and is labeled under the Baldur’s Gate franchise.
Everyone who screams
"THIS IS NOT BALDUR'S GATE, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!" always says the exact same thing, thinking they know best, and thinking their defense is iron-clad and they're right in every sense of the word.
But you forget a few things.
1. Larian did not call this Baldur's Gate. Wizard of the Coast called this Baldur's Gate. If Wizards wanted this to be called something else, like "Dungeons & Dragons: Mindflayer Saga", they would have.
2. Y'all scream
"This isn't my Baldur's Gate! This is totally different! It's not RTWP, it's turn-based! It's not the Bhaal saga!", but always forget that things like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance existed, and you always conveniently never bring it up or say
"Well that's different!" or
"That doesn't apply!", but it certainly does. You can't choose one half of the narrative and exclude the part that destroys your argument out of convenience to support your points.
You can't say this isn't Baldur's Gate without taking those two things into the equation.
