Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Better without the Baldur's Gate name?

Absolutly right. Josh Sawyer tweeted recently:

it's been a long time since i worked on The Black Hound, but i want to make clear (again) that i never had any intention of that game being called Baldur's Gate III or Baldur's Gate (whatever).

IPLY put that title on it after well over a year and a half of dev had been done.

they did it for contractual issues they had (they were only allowed to publish D&D games with baldur's gate or icewind dale in the title). i, and many others on the team, expressed concern over tacking the name onto a game that was made to be its own thing, not an IE/BG game.

the only connection it had was with IWD (maralie fiddlebender was a companion). it had no connection to BG at all.

in the end it didn't really matter, but i think it's important to note that the team's intention was never to use the BG name.

Which is very different from the team's intention here TO use the BG name.

What gets me is the constant interjection from people who think that fans who are disappointed with the new game are just whinging.

Even in this thread, despite several posts of really good discussion there is always interjection about bullshit.

People have opinions, and you don't have to agree with them. That doesn't make your opinion better, or right.

The fact of the matter is that Swen Vincke already admitted that they are using the BG name to push DOS formula games. That is what the problem we have is. No one is saying "herp derp, no more bg games!" or "herp derp larian ruined my childhood" ... we are saying "Larian and Wizards sold out for cash". This game is literally a DOS clone being sold under the BG banner. That is the problem.




Head to 3:30 ... https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s

If the game is good & feels like a proper d&d game, what is the problem exactly?

I fully agree with the OP. All this mess started because Larian put the ''3'' in the title to try and capitalize on the success of BG1 and 2. I hope they will realize on time that it is a mistake which could very well backfire on them. It is much easier for them to modify the name than to add a RTWP option for example (which I am sure they do not want to hear about anyway).

Was fallout : new Vegas a mistake because it wasn't a turn based, isometric rpg but the complete opposite?

I honestly don't understand why a new d&d game set in baldurs gate could not be called baldurs gate 3.

Firstly, the game isn't done, so can't really determine that. Secondly, it is going to be based on D&D rules, so cannot quite call it a clone. If you think they should not being using any systems, mechanics, models, theories, etc that resemble DOS, I would say you are misguided. Not only was DOS massively successful, and thus a sensible platform upon which to build a game like BG3, but it doesn't make economical sense to start from scratch. That it is why so many studios license the Unreal Engine to make their games. Should all studios create new engines so their product doesn't look like other games? In an ideal world, perhaps; but we live in a real world. It's not going to happen unless the studio in question is a new studio with little or no previous work to build upon (so they can make everything from scratch and unique looking), in which case, they would never be given the opportunity to make a BG3 title at all for being inexperienced in the industry.

Or the "mess" started with a seemingly small group of BG fans not liking what they saw. To me it seems that this is not a "mess" at all to most people.

I have to 2nd this.

Why name it Baldur's Gate 3, if it doesn't have a connection with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?

Just because it plays around Baldurs Gate?

Like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance which could just as well be named Westor: Dark Alliance, if it played in Westor instead of Baldur's Gate.

That wasn't the defining characteristic of the old games. The 2nd game and most of the add-ons didn't even play in or near Baldur's Gate. What connected the old games where the characters and the story of the Bhaalspawn. If Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have anything to do with that, it really shouldn't be called Baldurs Gate 3.

There are many Dnd games that share the same background world as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, without borrowing the name. Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pool of Radiance, Sword Coast Legends to name a few. They each had their own story, but they all took place in the world of Faerun.

So why not give your game, your story, its own name. Like: Yartar: The Mindflayer Saga. Ceremorphosis or Mind the Tadpole

I mean your got a Spelljammer, the origin of Illithids, planartravel, dragon riding Githyanki, a Vampire Spawn. So much content to create your own story around and write your own sage. And although many of those things did have an appearance in Baldurs Gate 1 and 2, unless they are connected to the characters and storytelling of the old Baldur's Gate games, they have absolutely nothing to do with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

I know its probably to late for that but please unless your extending the Bhaalspawn Saga or tell new and exiting stories of its beloved characters there is no reason to name your game Baldurs Gate 3.

I've never seen this much nitpicking over what's pretty much a non-issue

Did you count the people or is it just a personal assessment / speculation?

www.change.org

Create it for them to change the name (at least delete the 3).
They probably won't but they'll probably listen and stop doing a DoS-like with a legendary video game.

Pretty sure thousands would sign according to what's happening everywhere players talk about the game.

As I started that sentance with "To me it seems..." I was ofc only using my personal assessment. From what I have seen from comments here, on twitter, under yt videos and on gaming sites I am of the opinion that most people by far does not have any problem at all with this game being named Baldur's Gate 3.

When my sisters and I were children, my father would always use "maybe" instead of "yes" or "no" so that we could never whine that he said yes or some such to something upcoming but ended up saying no.

Larian are calling the game "Baldur's Gate 3." It isn't what some of you, maybe even half of you, imagined it would be. Get over it and move on.

Another difference is this team's intention to make a BG game.

I have my issue(s) with this game, as described elsewhere...but being honest with myself, I do wish to buy and play this (shortly after final release and some reviews and thoughts on the game). I also suspect said reviews and thoughts will not preclude me from buying it (it would take a Sword Coast Legends or Pools of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor type disaster to stop me from buying it, which I find highly unlikely with Larian).

Ultimately, I don't care what Larian's intentions, motivations or goals are with this (beyond hoping they achieve them to their satisfaction). What I care about is a quality (subjective) and fun (subjective) D&D 5e game to play. I THINK I'll get that here...but only time will tell.

Why do you think it got cancelled? Because BG3 didn't need to be made. It really still doesn't.

Baldur's Gate: Cult of the Damned

Baldur's Gate: Avernus

Baldur's Gate: Ilsensine

or many other options would have been better than BG3, which sets up entirely different expectations.

It would have made sense if Larian had been the one deciding to make the game in the first place, which mind you was their first intention. But as they were contacted later by WotC to take on the franchise, changing the name would literally be a betrayal of their contract. So no, they shouldn't change it no matter what some angry mobs decide to whine about.

I doubt it would have made a difference to use those names because Baldur's Gate would still be in the title so people would immediately apply expectations on the game no matter what.

Not that it matters. Many game franchises have changed setting, time periods and protagonists between games. Every Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest game. Red Dead Redemption to Red Dead Redemption 2, which turned into a sequel and a completely different protagonist. The Dragon Age games went from fighting a Blight in Ferelden as a Grey Warden to being the Champion of Kirkwall, fighting Qunari, mages and templars to becoming an Inquisitor and fighting a bunch of demons and a darkspawn magister.

Quit blaming Larian, Wizards of the Coast green lighted this as well. Every developer has their "style". This is Larian's. Deal with it and play the game or sit down and play something else.