Originally Posted by kanisatha
My point simply is that one cannot say WotC/Larian's decision to use that name is a neutral or arbitrary decision. It is indisputably a *calculated* decision meant to help sell the game to a wider audience than they would get if they did not use that name. That's all I'm saying.

Or perhaps WotC/Larian and some long time fans simply disagree what BG3 could and should look like. How game makers perceive an IP and how players perceive it might be fundamentally different.

EDIT. Most of us are here because we are fans of BG1/2. And yet we can't agree on what were important parts of BGs and what changes are acceptable/desirable. Larian's approach might not be made according to my and your vision of BG3, but it doesn't mean that they are not making BG3. They pitched BG3 and they were granted the IP. Sven somewhere did say that if he didn't intend to make BG3 he wouldn't call it BG3.

We might argue regarding what BG3 should be, but that doesn't mean that Larian can't do the same. And as they were granted the right to do it, their take on what BG is has more sway then ours.

Last edited by Wormerine; 24/08/20 08:26 PM.