I am a fan of Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2. I am also 54 years old (I *think* that qualifies as "old") and I enjoyed Baldur's Gate 3 as well.
It probably should have been called something other than "Baldur's Gate 3" but I can understand why they went with the big juicy market signal, and it did at least involve more time in the city Baldur's Gate than Baldur's Gate 2 did. As long as you let Larian's game be Larian's game (and don't try to shoehorn it into a direct sequel to BG2) its fun.
I agree that bg2 have nothing to do with baldurs gate itself, as a city I mean, at least it was a continuation of bhallspawn story. That is why it had a subtitle shadows of amn.
When spellbound released a game in gothic universe they named it Arcania: A gothic tale. They didn't name it Gothic 4 because it has nothing to do with older gothic games, in terms of game design, gameplay, etc., despite being the same universe.
I have nothing against the idea of using an existing IP to create your own story. Looking how much flack beamdog got for siege of dragonspear because they changed behavior of original baldurs gate companions.
If the game story takes you to baldurs gate, you have the right to use it in your game title but naming it bg3 suggests it is the continuation of original games.
I do not know what angered me more the fact it is turned based or the misleading title.
Normally I wouldn't give 2 cents about it, if it was any other game but I am very emotional about it because I was raised on baldurs gate 1&2.
There are 3 games that I get very emotional : baldurs gate, civilisation and heroes of might and magic. Civilisation I was the first game I played and bg1 was the game that most of geeks in my school were talking about ; since I was the only guy on my block that had PC and this game caused that many guys from my class was coming to my house to play it. It has very special place in my heart.
That is why I am very emotional about this topic. Probably too emotional. Getting too excited is bad for me.
