It is a Baldur's Gate game. If Larian wants to make their very own game exactly how they want it to be then they should not pick a name that is this strongly tied to a particular kind of game. If Larian wants to use that particular name then they should also accept the restrictions that come with that name.
Yeah ... but what exactly that mean anyway?
I mean isnt that ultimate question?
And not just in games, but also movies, series, tabletop, books ... basicaly anything that do have sequel.
There will allways be some people that will claim that "
this is no longer *XY* bcs it lacks *XYZ*" ...
But there is no evolution without changes. :-/
Sure, not all changes have to be good, but if we will be affraid to change anyghing, we could simply re-release the same Skyrim over and over with slightly improved graphic ... do we really want that? (Oh wait.
)
For example:
I bet there is lot of people out there that will tell you that Fallout 3 were no longer Fallout, bcs that game was providing completely different experience.
But was that a bad thing? O_o
Actualy i believe that Fallout is quite good example, bcs that game gets quite simmilar overdo as Baldur's Gate did.
Both was isometric ... now both its 3D ...
BG was Real time with pause ... now its turn based ...
Fallout was turn based ... now its real time with V.A.T.S. (something kinda simmilar to pause, if you are not familiar) ...
I could find some more similarities, but im too lazy for that ... so google yourself. :P
My point is ...
Larian presented some vision to WotC when they were talking about using their trademark. (Or at least that is how things usualy work.)
Therefore, logicaly if WotC give them their permition ... they are okey with that vision, no matter what that is ...
Concidering how good sellings of this game was, i would dare to say that nobody will even notice that *some* people disliked Larian vision ... WotC did ... and people who buyed it obviously did too (or at least that is how companies usualy measure sucesfullness of their product) ... and that is what matters.
First and Before Anything Else, they must deliver the game that is being, advertised and pitched and sold. Their vision is irrelevant if that former condition is not fulfilled. If they deliver their vision, but in doing so they do not deliver that former condition, then they have failed, and worse than that, they will have deceived, and defrauded people.
Basicaly i would agree ...
Problem here is in that point, where their advertising ends and our expectations begins ...
Main problem of this is pinpoint where exactly it is, since that is also quite abstract construct.
For example ...
Baldur's Gate III. is advertised as "based on DnD 5e" ... at least in my country it is.
And here are people complaining about things that are (quote) "not exactly as they are in tabletop rules" ...
Does that mean that advertising was wrong ... or their asumption that something that is "based on" actualy means "literal transcription of rules 1:1" ?
Another example ... a little more abstract:
As long as their point of view would be "
anything from this universe is conciderable as sequel, no matter how well it fits to that universe" (yes, looking at you new so called "Star Wars trilogy" from Disney) ... officialy it would be a sequel ... and therefore their advertising, "we will deliver sequel", would be fulfilled ...
Of course ... they would probably piss off large amount of their fanbase and potentialy hurt both the trademark and studio that allowed such herecy ... but the question is (still looking at you, Disney) how much would copyright owner even care, as long it makes enough money.
(Spoiler alert: Not at all.)
Don't get me wrong: Worms is a great game series. I love it. I genuinely do... And if this theoretical company had advertised that they were making a new Worms game, I might have been excited for it, in its own way. But it's not what was advertised, so it's not what I came here FOR, in this case. I don't care if they say that this was their vision for the series: That's no apology and no excuse for failing to deliver the original stated goal.
Actualy Worms are great example ...
(and i still believe that Fallout was too)
Personaly i loved Armageddon ... but the new, 3D wersion seemed allways weird to me. :-/
So, for myself ... Worms 3D was no longer Worms ... doesnt seem like anybody care, if you know what i mean.
Dont get me wrong, i get what you were trying to say (or at least i believe i did) ...
Its just seem to me that if Larian would screw Baldur's Gate III. so much as you described with "Better Gardening 3" ... they would need to make first person shooter out of it.
