If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.
The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?
I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.
Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?
Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?
Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.
