@robertthebard We really got off topic so I will put reply in spoiler tag
That WOTC signed on it, doesn't change a thing. And yes, the plot might have an indepth connection to the originals that is relvealed later on, but I still think it is irrelevant. It seems you are, like Rag, talking about sequels in film/book sense, but those are games we are talking about. I will paste again definition as descriped by a giant bomb, because we are talking about games, not films. https://www.giantbomb.com/sequel/3015-3178/ https://www.giantbomb.com/spin-off/3015-1100/
I would argue that BG3 departs too far from the template of the originals. Some departures, sure, but one would be hard pressed to find similarities between originals and BG3 aside from generalities (there is leveling, there are companions, there are items) that would apply to many if not all cRPGs.
The issue is, that whenever BG3 continues story or has characters from BG1&2 is pretty irrelevant. With Bhaalspawn Saga being finished, there is no narrative need to continue the story. They could have made a Baldur's Gate3 that would start a new saga, and as long as it would mechanically continue and evolve what BG1&2 were doing, it still would make for a decent sequel. I would still say: "What's the point of calling it Baldur's Gate, as the series established their identity already", but creatively I think it would still be more valid that what Larian is doing. One would still make a Baldur's Gate game, just start a new story, because the old one was finished.
Giant bomb describes spinoff as: "A game that takes gameplay mechanics, characters, or story elements from an existing series in a separate and different direction, sometimes changing genres along the way." On the other hand, "In video games, there is often no narrative at all to link a game to its sequel (for instance, Forza Motorsport and Forza Motorsport 2,) and many story-focused sequels drop some or all of the characters, settings, and themes found in the original game."
I don't think it applies 100% to Baldur's Gate3, as the series have established world, so some narrative continuity is necessary, but games are games. They are to be played, not read or watched. As such, how the game plays is the most important aspect.
Ok, so you don't think that tamplate as established by Bioware can or should be used. So you reboot the franchise - not narratively (though even if plot and some character re-appear, I still see BG3 world as rebooted - just see recent conversation about mature content in what used to be a Teen adventure) but mechanically - God of War situation.
I would also refer you to Persona5: Strikers - it narratively continues Persona5 storyline, but as a game it is a spin-off. If they were to call it Persona5-2, it would create much different expectations.
Baldur's Gate series as such a done for, and BG3 isn't meant to complement them, but replace them, so it isn't a spin-off but a reboot. It is reimagening of BG1&2 basic concepts with focus on different elements than the originals, with bigger focus on systemic sandbox (with inconsistent result so far) and coop multiplayer. Not necessarily a bad thing (Bhalspawn saga is done and finished, and as you mention 5e doesn't lend itself to exact gameplay that BG1&2 had) but a sequel it is not.
But we end up, predictably talking about BG3, thanks to myself and Rag, while the tread is about discussing other games specifically.
Bloodlines finished its narrative neatly in one game. There isn't really much to continue, outside doing another decent story in the world of that game. As such, the only sequel one can do is the one that pays homage to Bloodline's design. Otherwise it is less Bloodlines2 and more of "another game in the same universe".
