Harthwain
Magister
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2019
- Messages
- 4,774
Baldur's Gate 2 was literally called "Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn", indicating it takes places in Amn, while also being a sequel to Baldur's Gate 1. That was the whole point. It made sense.It should be called Shadows of Amn, but the general audience would be too dumb to realize that it's a sequel to Baldur's Gate.I agree, bg2 should have been called something else because it didn't take place in baldur's gate.Then they shouldn't have called it Baldur's Gate, plain and simple.most of the public is not expecting a game that is in any way similar to it.
Baldur's Gate 3 being called Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't be much of a problem, if we knew what's the direct link between BG3 and the other games in the series. But, supposedly, there IS a connection. We just don't know what the connection is in detail:
We really don’t want to spoil anything but we wouldn’t call it Baldur’s Gate 3 if there wouldn’t be a link", he explained. "Let me just say that we touch upon the story of [Baldur's Gate] 1 & 2 in meaningful ways, there are returning characters and what happened in BG 1/2/[Throne of Bhaal] leads to what happens into BG3. You won’t necessarily see that at the start of the adventure but you will quickly understand once you get further into the game.