Why was this game called Baldur's Gate 3?

[Pushup]

It has little to no relation to the previous two beloved rpgs.

[lazarusblack]

This is such a subjective issue. It really is impossible to get to any clear position on whether this title was right to be styled and marketed as Baldurs Gate 3 or if it would have benefited from being, not a continuation of that previous story but it's own, entirely unique take on Baldurs Gate. Not that it matters at this point. The question is philosophical at this point

I think the final verdict will be dictated by how the "connections" to the original story, play out in this title and if Larian is able to make all of that mesh and feel relevant.

Sadly, too many people see this subject, as an attack on the legitimacy or quality of BG3 rather than a valid question that should be regarded on it's own merits. So any discussion descends into bickering and argument. Both those posing the question, who use it to attack Larian, the game and it's fandom, for not making the game they wanted and made too by those zealous fans who will countenance no criticism or perceived (rightly or wrongly) attack against something they really care about, be it Larian or the game.

Mechanically, I'm more than happy to say the game is shaping up to be a really good CRPG. It's not much like the Infinity engine games and nor was it ever likely to be. For a multitude of reasons. But not least of all, it's been 22 years since the last game in the series! Technology, game design and player expectations have changed since then. Not to mention that D&D has changed in that time... like... four times.

I don't think that mechanically, we can realistically compare the two iterations of "Baldurs Gate" They are too far apart and thus they could never really be comparable without any new Baldurs Gate being a throwback. That wasn't the goals of the development team.

Where we can make legitimate and interesting comparisons, is in terms of "Spirit" "Ethos" and "Narrative" Upto a point. Since the game isn't fully released we can only make inferences from what we have seen so far.

I think that if a conversation is to be had, it needs to be had on those terms and not on the terms of mechanics or engine.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by larhtas:

Originally posted by Wes:

Because Wotc can do whatever they want with their properties! 🤪🍭 They're smartly cashing in with Larian,, & I'd do the same exact thing too.

=======

"It feels Iike a D&D game set in the same universe as BG 1&2, but run by a different Dungeon Master, who has a different personality and storytelling approach. If that makes sense." www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/s6x87y/comment/ht682te/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

========

"Personally I find it a little pathetic that 40 yo dudes can be so butthurt, that someone dared to use the sacred name of the game of their childhood.

It's just a game you played as a kid, not some holy artifact. Be happy that you can return to this world after 20 years where everyone lost hope for a sequel. Or forget about it and move on. Maybe your kid will like BG3, get interested in old Baldur's Gate and you'll have something to share. No need to defend the honor of Baldur's Gate name or something."

"What kind of blows my mind is that they refuse to accept that;

1.) Gaming conventions have evolved over 2 decades.

2.) DnD itself as a game has gone through 3 different iterations since BG2.

3.) Turn-based combat is a perfectly valid way to play an RPG.

4.) BG and BG2 are both at their core on-rails experiences, which is something they criticize BG3 for.

5.) The writing in BG and BG2 is inconsistent, sometimes corny or hilarious (which, again, is something they criticize BG3 for.)

6.) Absolutely nobody except them wants to return to the Infinity-engine formula." www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/kpu7wk/comment/gi467w2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Hi. Thank you for this!

What's also missing is the literal connections to BG 1 and 2, including the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of easter eggs and literal characters from those games. But getting hung up on the name is stupid anyway. They could have called it anything and it wouldn't have mattered. The naysayers can go back to playing CoD when it releases and stop pretending they give a ♥♥♥♥ about RPGs.

[A Sociopath]

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Originally posted by larhtas:

Hi. Thank you for this!

What's also missing is the literal connections to BG 1 and 2, including the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of easter eggs and literal characters from those games. But getting hung up on the name is stupid anyway. They could have called it anything and it wouldn't have mattered. The naysayers can go back to playing CoD when it releases and stop pretending they give a ♥♥♥♥ about RPGs.

Well it'd be pretty silly to call it baldurs gate 3 without any connections to baldurs gate, lol.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Pushup:

It has little to no relation to the previous two beloved rpgs.

That you're acknowledging at least.

It is called Baldur's Gate 3 because it's the third computer game in the series, takes place a little over 100 years after the second, is set in the same universe, has confirmed returning characters like Minsc and Jaheira, the Dead Three and the same themes of having dreams tempt the player to using a dark power that is within them where it is in their best interest to NOT use it but the power it grants may just be worth it.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by A Sociopath:

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

What's also missing is the literal connections to BG 1 and 2, including the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of easter eggs and literal characters from those games. But getting hung up on the name is stupid anyway. They could have called it anything and it wouldn't have mattered. The naysayers can go back to playing CoD when it releases and stop pretending they give a ♥♥♥♥ about RPGs.

Well it'd be pretty silly to call it baldurs gate 3 without any connections to baldurs gate, lol.

That's my point. OP and other are asking "why is this called BG3, it has nothing to do with 1 and 2," and then miss how it's about Baldur's Gate and has characters and possibly even aftermath of events from 1 and 2 and plenty of easter eggs.

It has plenty of reasons to be called BG -3- even though it needed none. Staying hung up on the name was stupid and frankly RTwP needs to die and no one making CRPGs is really using it anymore aside from Owlcat and they're going turn-based too.

You go action like an ARPG or you go turn-based, rtwp was a stopgap and there's no point using it for nostalgia.

I'm a hardcore BG1 and 2 players and frankly 3 looks better in every way. I would love the first two to be remade in the same style with updates and I don't give a damn how angry that makes the Gollums clutching to games that are far more horribly flawed that they seemed to realize.

[lazarusblack]

Originally posted by Wes:

"It feels Iike a D&D game set in the same universe as BG 1&2, but run by a different Dungeon Master, who has a different personality and storytelling approach. If that makes sense." www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/s6x87y/comment/ht682te/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Such a good point. I do feel that there is a good degree of DnD feel here, it's more colourful and jocular than BG1&2 but that isn't a bad thing. Just different. It feels suitably DnD in my estimation. It's noticeably 5E and I think that plays into some people's issues. But those are things that are baked into the game. It's the fabric Larian have to work with, the finished garment is what will be judged. So BG1&2 are silk and BG3 is velvet, do both iterations sport enough similar aesthetic characteristics, to be seen on the same fashion runway? To be part of the same ensemble?

Originally posted by Wes:

1.) Gaming conventions have evolved over 2 decades.

2.) DnD itself as a game has gone through 3 different iterations since BG2.

3.) Turn-based combat is a perfectly valid way to play an RPG.

4.) BG and BG2 are both at their core on-rails experiences, which is something they criticize BG3 for.

5.) The writing in BG and BG2 is inconsistent, sometimes corny or hilarious (which, again, is something they criticize BG3 for.)

I thik it's each of these points that people are having issues with and not whether the game is a fitting continuation of the series, or not.

I think we have the DnD previous addition fans, the RTwP fans and the usual nostalgia gamers, all confusing their grievances with the lack of game mechanic they wanted, with the identity of the game.

While I will say I think it's too soon and the EA is too incomplete to see if Larian is able to pull off a compelling and seamless continuation of Baldurs Gate's story, I think the beginnings of the forgotten realms and Baldurs Gates environs, being convincing and immersive are there.

[Hex]

BioWare named it's DnD games based on the area, hence Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

They are simply continuing that. If it was close to Neverwinter, they would name it NWN3. NWN2 had nothing to do with NWN1 either, by the way.

[Oven]

Originally posted by Rusted Metal:

Because it has Baldur's Gate, This game should be called BG2 because BG2 was not a true sequel imo due to the lack of Baldur's Gate.

It's a sequel because it's a direct continuation of the Bhaalspawn's story not because of the setting.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Hex:

BioWare named it's DnD games based on the area, hence Icewind Dalte, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

They are simply continuing that. If it was close to Neverwinter, they would name it NWN3. NWN2 had nothing to do with NWN1 either, by the way.

And IWD is a pretty damn loose sequel to IWD2. A generation later, entirely new and unrelated characters, largely new areas with just a couple repeats. And, of course, a drastically different rule system.

[Nox Phantom]

Rekon because it tells the next chapter in dead 3s plot thus continuing the overall story of first two, therefore a sequal

[Clovis Sangrail]

What about the two Dark Alliance games --

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1695830/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance/

and

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1889930/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance_II/

Shouldn't this be Baldur's Gate 5? (Or Baldur's Gate V if you prefer Roman numerals.)

[A Sociopath]

Originally posted by Clovis Sangrail:

What about the two Dark Alliance games --

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1695830/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance/

and

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1889930/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance_II/

Shouldn't this be Baldur's Gate 5? (Or Baldur's Gate V if you prefer Roman numerals.)

Those appear to be a proper wrench thrown in the logic of some.

[lazarusblack]

As I say, too soon to decide if this should have been "Baldur's Gate: Larians Adventure" or if it can legitimately be regarded as a continuation of the first two games narrative and ethos and thus was right to go with Baldur's Gate "3"

We'll know once the game releases. Until then it's all just guess work.

[Aldain]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

Because calling it Baldur’s Gate 1 or 2 would have been confusing.

Well that and the marketing department figured "Billy Bob's Brain Tadpole Jamboree: Featuring Baldur's Gate from the Baldur's Gate franchise" didn't really hit the ear of consumers right.

[Hex]

Originally posted by Clovis Sangrail:

What about the two Dark Alliance games --

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1695830/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance/

and

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1889930/Baldurs_Gate_Dark_Alliance_II/

Shouldn't this be Baldur's Gate 5? (Or Baldur's Gate V if you prefer Roman numerals.)

Or maybe it's because those games were completely different types of games from Baldur's Gate? Fallout: Tactics and Fallout: BoS were also not called Fallout 3 for that reason.

It really doesn't matter, the name was chosen for the sake of name recognition which will do the marketing for you. I don't get why people are so hung up about it.

Call it Tadpole Tapdance if it makes you fell better, nobody caeres.