Not addressing Dark Alliance is not "Failing" at anything when it is irrelevant to the current topic. It was a console based game that had to act within the confines associated to being a console game. I have no expectations of a console game behaving like a PC game, thus the lack of a comparison between the two here. Comparing PC games to console games has always been a false equivalence. You injecting it here is little more than whataboutism in an effort to establish some needless "Aha" with response to my issue that, as a PC game, Baldur's Gate III lacks the gameplay style, storyline, scripting, and essentially every other facet of similarity to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. I find that disappointing. If you don't, then that's fine, but it does not discredit or otherwise soundly counter my points thus far. You are a different sort of consumer, with a different expectation for the game. I would expect that a game, which titles itself as "Baldur's Gate IIII", would be comparable in some fashion to Baldur's Gate I and Baldur's Gate II (plus all associated expansions) because, again, the naming convention implies it is directly associated to the previous two. That's not something Dark Alliance had, hence it being named "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance".
That said, since you seem fixated on Dark Alliance? I also disliked the console games for everything from gameplay to story. What now?
Just because a game is titled as a sequel, does not mean it's forced to stay within the confines of the previous games.
Just because it's called Baldur's Gate 3, does not mean it has to play the exact same as Baldur's Gate 2 did. All games evolve over time, some choosing entirely different styles, despite being continuations.
Pokemon, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Super Mario; All games off the top of my head that have evolved over time, despite being sequels of each other (Zelda less so, because of its timeline issues), but they've all changed.
If your argument is that "Well, the 2 and 3 are what link them and make them sequels!", then does that discredit every other game without numbers in the title, claiming every other one is just a spin-off (Even if they're directly linked story-wise)?
It is named Baldur's Gate 3 because it is associated with the previous two. Baldur's Gate 3 is still within the same universe, will have some of the same characters (Confirmed but not spoiled, as per the Devs), and the storyline follows both the tabletop campaign, and the Bhaalspawn campaign (100 years later).
The naming doesn't force it to play like the previous titles.
My point with Dark Alliance was that everyone who claims "This isn't Baldur's Gate" always leave those titles out, and you did from the get-go. It was never a naming issue before, but now it is because of a number tacked on.
But again, despite player opinion saying it's "Not Baldur's Gate", it forever will officially be "Baldur's Gate", because Wizard of the Coast said it is, despite player ignorance being their own bliss.
