Leroux: Oh, I don't have any expectations with regards to the story. In fact, this discussion started when I said I see no need to continue the story from BG2, and Sarafan already confirmed that it will be a completely new story. I just said I find it a bit inappropriate to add a 3 to the classic 1+2 when 1+2 tell a complete connected story and 3 is something entirely different. […]
jepsen1977: Yes, once you add that
3 in the title it's gonna come with some expectations and those are justified and if Larian doesn't want people to expect the game to play in a specific way or have certain characters in the game then they shouldn't have used the name
Baldur's Gate 3 in the marketing.
This assumes the upcoming title will complete the list of games called
Balder's Gate. Think of the
Star Trek franchise; the second movie was not related to the first in any meaningful manner, and it began a trilogy of new characters and events. I expect this is the aim of the new game, to create the basis for Four, Five and probably Six (with expansions, cosmetic armour and DLC, etc.).
The whole point of using the name is because it has cache; marketing a sequel to a great game will provide the new IP with a halo, and a lot of people will buy it without further prompt, or at least look at it favourably when it is released.
As long as they do a reasonable job the franchise will survive and provide the bean counters with a good return on their investment. And there is a small but not-insignificant chance they will do a good job and that will create a new big beast studio for subsequent AAA game development.
