Why the name?

[Lamiosa]

I think using BG3 as title caused alot of critics within old fans, because people expected a sequel. I played every baldurs gate and divinity and enjoyed them, but what I enjoyed most at baldurs gate was the story about playing the offspring of Bhaal. I do not see how BG3 continues the story of BG2 and think the title caused lots of confusion, it could have just another name and played in the forgotten realms campaign. The only reason I see for using BG3 as title is marketing. But Larian could have saved lots of critics, if not leaving the community compare it to BG2 with using this title, not only because of the discontinuity of the story (where some might say it ended at BG2 anyway), but also another combat system.

[tm0Lif3]

based on latest AMA they hinted there's a connection. they won't call it baldur's gate 3 if there isn't a connection.. according to sven. basically i have no issue it being turn-based.. but it looks and play very much like DOS2 which i really disappointed with.

[Hobocop]

There is continuity with the story of BG1+2 in the sense that the events of those games were of such scale that their impact on the world continues to be felt even over a century later, which is when BG3 is set. Exactly how or why remains to be seen, but they've bounced the plot details they're going with off loremasters at WotC for approval, so there's a level of authenticity in that respect.

The combat system is not a concern for me; its a completely different version of the ruleset with a very different action economy, and frankly, 95% of the combat in BG1+2 was unremarkable. It was inevitably going to be different after 20 years of tech advancement and ruleset changes, and I'm ready to see what Larian does with it come version 1.0, because I've yet to be impressed by the combat in any of the more recent examples of RTwP cRPGs.

[The Infinity Sock]

Why there used the name two reasons why there did that one is money the other is dealing with stuff that happened after the Baldur's Gate games

[Eguzky]

qhristoff の投稿を引用：

FoE Rosa の投稿を引用：

I know this one!
It's called Baldur's Gate because the owners of Baldur's Gate said so.

Just like we have our own names because the people who made us said so.

this is seriously the most juvenile playground defense ever.

"nya nya nya! my mommy said so!"

One day you will grow up and start thinking for yourselves. Today just isn't that day, it seems.

Here we go! More attacks from the salty RTwP crew. Are you guys just determined to attack everyone & make these forums as unhappy as possible?

Is your goal to chase everyone away, since you did not get what you wanted?

[OH! MY CAR]

FoE Rosa の投稿を引用：

It's called Baldur's Gate because the owners of Baldur's Gate said so.

Just like we have our own names because the people who made us said so.

Pretty sure this is the correct answer.

[Killy, the Explorer]

Are any of the old folks (mainly writer(s)) on the team? I had hopes that, if someone makes a sequel (not that one is needed btw), that most of the same guys making it, so at least it will be hitting the same beats. Sadly, with the way Divinity 1+2 came about, I dont see them making a good sequel to BG (but a good game they most likely will). That mostly lies in their approach to game making and that engine (I really that that thing :-D ).

[Beardpick]

Recreating the same thread...every day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jvcNrjM_F4

[Killy, the Explorer]

Which on one hand shows the confusion why they did choose to revive a resting franchise, instead of making a new one ;-) what it shows on the other you will eventually tell us, do you not?

[Lamiosa]

Well, if there is quote of Devs which answers it, it seems still a valid question. Since now the only sane answer to take same name is marketing. I still will have to see how BG3 is linked to BG/BG2.

Btw. naming it "DOS3" would have been nonsense, sind DOS and Forgotten Realms (D&D) are two different universes, they would have to make a quiet different game then.

[Killy, the Explorer]

Lamiosa の投稿を引用：

Well, if there is quote of Devs which answers it, it seems still a valid question. Since now the only sane answer to take same name is marketing. I still will have to see how BG3 is linked to BG/BG2.

Btw. naming it "DOS3" would have been nonsense, sind DOS and Forgotten Realms (D&D) are two different universes, they would have to make a quiet different game then.

I agree. At the moment I just think that Larian is the wrong team for the job and that the IP will suffer for it (if they retcon specific things from BG2 for example, like Rain Johnson did to SW). Hopefully I will be proven wrong here.

[Beardpick]

DoomSodan の投稿を引用：

Lamiosa の投稿を引用：

Well, if there is quote of Devs which answers it, it seems still a valid question. Since now the only sane answer to take same name is marketing. I still will have to see how BG3 is linked to BG/BG2.

Btw. naming it "DOS3" would have been nonsense, sind DOS and Forgotten Realms (D&D) are two different universes, they would have to make a quiet different game then.

I agree. At the moment I just think that Larian is the wrong team for the job and that the IP will suffer for it (if they retcon specific things from BG2 for example, like Rain Johnson did to SW). Hopefully I will be proven wrong here.

Why would they need to retcon anything from BG 1/2? The story ended, and in the official canon, the last Bhaalspawn was killed and Bhaal has been reborn as a deity and taken the domain of murder back from Cyric.

[Killy, the Explorer]

Beardpick の投稿を引用：

DoomSodan の投稿を引用：

I agree. At the moment I just think that Larian is the wrong team for the job and that the IP will suffer for it (if they retcon specific things from BG2 for example, like Rain Johnson did to SW). Hopefully I will be proven wrong here.

Why would they need to retcon anything from BG 1/2? The story ended, and in the official canon, the last Bhaalspawn was killed and Bhaal has been reborn as a deity and taken the domain of murder back from Cyric.

How would I know? That is only a concern of mine. Like, they want to tell a certain story, which is not possible if they look at what happens in the last parts, so they just retcon it. I am not on the team, so I cannot tell you why they would do that, only that it COULD happen, okay?

[Hobocop]

DoomSodan の投稿を引用：

Beardpick の投稿を引用：

Why would they need to retcon anything from BG 1/2? The story ended, and in the official canon, the last Bhaalspawn was killed and Bhaal has been reborn as a deity and taken the domain of murder back from Cyric.

How would I know? That is only a concern of mine. Like, they want to tell a certain story, which is not possible if they look at what happens in the last parts, so they just change it. I am not on the team, so I cannot tell you why they would do that, only that it COULD happen, okay?

Unlikely. Like I already said, they have to run scenario ideas by loremasters and writers at WotC for approval, and they're the ones who control what is official canon.

[Killy, the Explorer]

Hobocop の投稿を引用：

DoomSodan の投稿を引用：

How would I know? That is only a concern of mine. Like, they want to tell a certain story, which is not possible if they look at what happens in the last parts, so they just change it. I am not on the team, so I cannot tell you why they would do that, only that it COULD happen, okay?

Unlikely. Like I already said, they have to run scenario ideas by loremasters and writers at WotC for approval, and they're the ones who control what is official canon.

Then lets hope WotC doesnt employ guys like Disney did for the lore :-D

[Opossum]

Why is Baldurs gate Descent into Avernus named BG? because the stories of D&D espically the sword coast are not what you always thought