Yawn.......this is not BG 1& BG2 - its not trying to be - leave those games in the past they are classics & everybody knows that (boy do we hear about it enough..)
Yes it has BG3 as a title its based (largely) in balders gate & follows a story 100 years later ....this is not trying to be a sequel to the other 2 games - its drawing on the influence of those games & yes it is a bit of marketing there but this is a new vision - the 3 games can exist in the same world setting.
Did....did you actually *play* the BG series?
If you did, you'd know that BG 2 never even goes to Baldur's Gate. It's set primarily in an entirely different city, as well as numerous other locations along the Sword Coast and then straight up into other planes of existence. But it's still a BG game.
That's one of the most true comments I've read in these kinds of threads. Here's the bonus footage: We've barely gotten into this game at all. We don't have the advantage of being the Bhaalspawn here, and we don't have the same companions, so we don't have that immediate "draw me back in" feel. Most of the human comps from that era are, or should be dead. That's why a 100 year jump, to get away from that, it's not the story line, or a plot point in the story line this time. We have no idea who we're going to meet, we have no idea where we're going to wind up going, but in what equates playing to Nashkell, we can already tell that this game isn't a game worthy of the Baldur's Gate title. I sure wish everything else in my life was this simple, where all I had to do was say "this isn't happening" and it would go away. Is this game worthy of that title? I don't know, yet. I haven't seen enough of it to know. The "it's not DnD" stuff can be summarily ignored, by me, because I know that if it's in the game, WotC approved it. Larian should be noting it, and evaluating it, but for me, it's a buzz word. Something that someone would post on Face Book or Twitter, or the title of a YouTube video to get lots of clicks.
