Hickory: Ok, fair enough, but it's still based in the city of Baldur's Gate. Besides, with "gods" involved, what's 200 years?
Baldur's Gate 2 was not set in Baldur's Gate, and did not involve even so much as visiting the city of Baldur's Gate. This established the fact that Baldur's Gate was not about the city, but about the Bhaalspawn.
At least with 100/200 years, we hopefully don't have to deal with another reinterpretation of Minsc and/or Imoen, but there are still elves to provide a lame tie-in with the originals (and the possibility that the humans may become undead or some such).
Also, re: my "crusade": I don't want another Fallout 3, thanks. Fallout now belongs to Bethesda in the world's mind, and the originals are the outliers. To a lesser extent, this has already happened to Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 with Beamdog's EEs. Games named as if they are proper sequels to the original that actually have nothing in common with the original other than some nebulous IP rights piss me off in general.
I'm not saying this will be a bad game. Just a badly named game. If they changed the name, I would just drop it until the game actually comes out, or at least a trailer that actually shows game rather than story, and judge then..
Bookwyrm627: 1) Read the thread. Specifically Post 3.
Don't know how I missed it, given that I reread the thread multiple times while editing my post. Oh well. I'll leave it in, for the world to laugh at (or more likely ignore).