I guess for the same reason that Baldur's Gate 2 Shadow's of Amn was called Baldur's Gate 2? Couldn't they have just called it Shadow's of Amn, or the Bhaalspawn Legacy/Saga? I mean, the series, until then, had become part of that saga, with some other media, novels and some TT, I believe, adding to it. The only thing Baldur's Gate about 2 was that it had some of the same characters in it, with the same protagonist, if you imported one from the first game, which wasn't required. Other than that, it was just brand recognition, right?
Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not exactly sure I 100% understand your reasoning/point.
BG2 continued the overarching story of BG1, that of the Bhaalspawn, using mainly the same mechanics/characters/region, making it a sequel in the truest sense. No? It certainly used brand recognition, but the use of "2" in the title was justified..?
Sure, but by comparison, it's the same argument as "But this game isn't Baldur's Gate". At this point, there is a lot more we don't know about what's coming in the story than what we do know. What we do know is that we're going to have some return characters, and a return to Baldur's Gate. But as we can see, this is more about
Quote
Naming conventions are well established in gaming, so while it’s been clear for someone like me (by that I mean I played Larian games) what BG3 will likely be
" than anything else. "But it's a Larian game", while true, doesn't tell the whole story. It is still the property of WotC/Hasbro, and if they weren't on board with the basic plot, they wouldn't have let Larian use the IP. It's a safe bet that WotC/Hasbro has more information about this game than we do, so there's bound to be a reason they allowed Larian to use the IP.**
In particular, when I think about Minsc, I don't think "Oh, the Forgotten Realms", I think "Oh, Baldur's Gate". The same for Jaheira. While Minsc does appear in the Neverwinter MMO, his origin is, and always will be, Baldur's Gate. We were never going to get the same mechanics, other than dice rolls, because BG 1 and 2 were 2nd edition, and this is going for 5e. It's also not going to be in the Infinity Engine. So, we have a return to the setting, both Forgotten Realms and Baldur's Gate, and returning characters from BG 1. BG 2 had returning characters, and the storyline. It kept the Forgotten Realms, but lost Baldur's Gate. So yes, it's a direct sequel. This does not, however, preclude another game in the same setting from using the title, especially with the parallels to the first game, setting x2 and returning characters. Bonus points if there are returning characters from BG 2 as well?
You see, I came away from the post I originally quoted thinking "hey, another "but it's really DOS 3" post". Which is more or less confirmed by the snippet I quoted above. What else do you suppose is meant by that? So, I pointed out some differences and similarities between the three titles. It's not like Larian created another new IP and slapped the Baldur's Gate title on it, they can't do that. Everything they're doing goes through an approval process, and if you're thinking this isn't the case, read the new OGL they're trying to push out. Something that stood out to me was them insisting that you had to submit your work for approval, even on mostly homebrew stuff that's using the current OGL... If they're going for that much control over IPs that they don't own, how much control do you suppose they're exerting over IPs they do own?
**Of note here, IP refers to Baldur's Gate, et al. You can make a DnD game that isn't Baldur's Gate, but can't make a Baldur's Gate game that isn't DnD, although I have to wonder, given Dark Alliance...
