It may not be entirely in line with the topic, but whatever. I guess people don't know what really makes the game a successor to bg. Reading the topics closer to the premiere of EA, it was much more visible (some people have given up since then). I remember opinions (and not single ones) that the game cannot be bg if there is no rtwp fight or 2e rules. There would also be opinions that the game is not BG because it does not have the same heroes, 2d graphics (these are only single cases, at least), bad color palette or even voice acting. If you did a good search, you would certainly find more. Reading these topics, you could get the impression that the only thing that would satisfy the fans is a copy of BG2 (even such a Pathfinder would barely fit). However, many fans really disagreed with each other completely.
So what really makes a bg game? The problem is that it is different for each person. For some, rtwp combat may be what defined games and other things may not matter. Likewise, other people may care more about 2e or other things.
Which is why the ethically correct thing to have done would have been to NOT call the game BG3. Even BG:..... would've been okay. Just not BG3. The moment they made it BG3 they instantly ended up disappointing many fans of the original BG games because you are just not going to make them feel the same way about this game as they felt about those original BG games. It is also why I hate it when devs use the term "spiritual successor" to describe their new game. In my view, it is the one huge mistake Obsidian did in talking about PoE, and similarly what cost inXile so much support for their new T:ToN game. If some fans on their own want to thing of a game as a successor to some much loved older game, that's fine. Let them come to that conclusion. But a dev should stay away from trying to jump on the bandwagon of a much beloved older game.
