mrfuji3, Wormerine, Gray Ghost, I would be more inclined to agree if the games were self-contained. But they aren't, and I said BG3 is a sequel (contentious, I know, but there are hints even without touching on the datamined content) and taking place in an established setting purposefully.
BG1&2 are mostly self contained, in the same way Marvel films are self contained. You don't need to play BG1 to enjoy BG2 (I know I didn't). And while it seems there will be returning characters in BG3 we didn't even get to those. Perhaps you could make an argument that players are expected to know who Bhaal, Mincs or Jaheira are, but so far all we have is new stuff unrelated to BG1&2. BG3 isn't failing to bring new players to the existing story, it fails in telling it's own story.
And just like I don't think it's unreasobale of, for example, a novel taking place in Waterdeep to expect its readers to have some basic knowledge of what Waterdeep is, I don't think it's unreasonable of BG3 to expect its players to have some basic knowledge of its setting either.
lol really? So a novel about Waterdeep is not an appropriate place to learn about Waterdeep? So what is the book about?
EDIT. I suppose it comes down to knowing your audience. If Larian and WotC intends for BG3 to be a tie-in to table-top campaign (they definitely don't intend it to be a sequel of BG3 as it isn't even if they shove familiar faces into their bastard child of D:OS and DnD), then I suppose that's fine, though a massive miscalculation IMO. However, I don't think it's intended. D:OS had poor woldbuilding as well, with some gaping plotholes being point out even by people who liked the games far more then I did. I imagine Larian's writing process and priorities are at fault, rather then particular intent.
