But one thing you cannot honestly call it is Baldur's gate 3.
Evidently you can, and they did. It's their name.
The fact that you grew up in the place doesn't make you an owner. It just gives you memories.
And just like the neighbourhood where you grew up will be uprooted at some point in time, so your Balder's Gate has moved on. A whole new generation lives there that doesn't care too much about the talk of the senile old guys.
welp i hope you guys look forward to 20 years from now when future YouTubers consider bg 3 the low point. just like we get with fallout when they talk about 3 and 4.
But one thing you cannot honestly call it is Baldur's gate 3.
Evidently you can, and they did. It's their name.
The fact that you grew up in the place doesn't make you an owner. It just gives you memories.
And just like the neighbourhood where you grew up will be uprooted at some point in time, so your Balder's Gate has moved on. A whole new generation lives there that doesn't care too much about the talk of the senile old guys.
Not honestly or correctly you can't. And what you don't seem to get is the neighborhood was paved over and you're pretending it's still a neighborhood. Senility doesn't come into it; facts do. Not claiming ownership, just paying attention to what's actually happening.
thats what some don't get. yes this is still a dnd game but it has nothing to do with the baldurs gate saga. it could have been called anything else and the people complaining would have been fine with it.
but the fact they called it baldurs gate 3 when the plot has nothing at all to do with the bhaalspawn makes it seem like a cash grab. it's a story about you being cursed by a mind flayer. now i also don't like mind flayers so the game was already getting negative points just for them being main villains
and before you say " what about dark alliance?" those games never pretended to be baldurs gate 3 it's obvious those are spin offs. even interplay did not try and pretend say fallout bos was fallout 3.
remove the 3 and people will have less to complain about it.
thats what some don't get. yes this is still a dnd game but it has nothing to do with the baldurs gate saga. it could have been called anything else and the people complaining would have been fine with it.
but the fact they called it baldurs gate 3 when the plot has nothing at all to do with the bhaalspawn makes it seem like a cash grab. it's a story about you being cursed by a mind flayer. now i also don't like mind flayers so the game was already getting negative points just for them being main villains
and before you say " what about dark alliance?" those games never pretended to be baldurs gate 3 it's obvious those are spin offs. even interplay did not try and pretend say fallout bos was fallout 3.
remove the 3 and people will have less to complain about it.
You're saying that they didn't add "Baldur's Gate" to the titles of those games to sell more copies?? Because otherwise they are wholly indistinguishable from any other console hack n' slash ever made. In fact, Champions of Norrath did it better. So why are Dark Alliance 1 & 2 remembered so fondly, as opposed to about 3 or 4 Lord of the Rings games from the same time period that are nearly identical gameplay-wise?? Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if for many people, Dark Alliance IS what Baldur's Gate is to them, because they have never been a PC gamer.
Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if for many people, Dark Alliance IS what Baldur's Gate is to them, because they have never been a PC gamer.
Joke's on them then. As you may recall, the upcoming Dark Alliance game has dropped the "Baldur's Gate" bit in its title.
Which is absolutely not a show of favoritism on WotC's end for a certain Belgium studio.
I think a lot of the choices being made are actually WotC's. @JuliusBorisov It would be beyond rad to her from a Beamdog dev RE: (in general, no relationship-altering specifics obv) what the working relationship is like with a dev and license holder. What's fair game? What's set in stone via the License holder? How much influence do they have over the development? etc etc.
A couple of thoughts in no order:
1. I honestly feel like BG3 is incorrectly being branded because there are going to be more of these games. More campaigns. More adventures. You should be able to move your characters seamlessly from one campaign to the next once you've purchased it. And having BG3 be the SECOND or THIRD game they put out would do a couple of things; 1) everyone's expectations would be managed as soon as it was announced 2) we would be confident (or not) that they could do the series justice and they'd have the feedback to rectify any missteps 3) It's still going to be wildly popular. 4) Might even have added a RTwP mode based on demand.
The use of the BG name reeks of "we need to take advantage of this as soon as possible." Instead of, "how can we best utilize the name to maximum effect?"
2*. SoD was made in '16 IIRC. This is why the look and feel of BG3 is so foreign. We 'know' that type of game is a possibility. PoE, Tyranny, Pathfinder, etc.
3. IMO enough people follow Larian/DOS and DnD is enough of a pull to not need the hype the BG name brings. You're telling me there's nowhere else in the FRs this came couldn't have been named after? Every BG game is a DnD game. Not every DnD game needs to be a BG game.
@Arcalian I am now calling every Elder Scrolls game post Oblivion "Oblivion x" now. That's hilarious.
@jjstraka34 You're missing the point. The problem isn't the "Baldur's Gate" in the title, its the "3". A spin-off would be fine (the Dark Alliance games were fine), but the blatant cynicism and falsehood behind calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is EA lootbox levels of bad.
Sigh. SoD was great. I really, REALLY wish we were getting more of that. Beamdog understands the BG spirit better than any other company. I must have fallen into the worst parallell universe at some point.
This is really getting ridiculous. At the end of the day we are all entitled to our opinions but this thread and some others are becoming a joke. I’m getting pretty fed up of coming on this forum and being made to feel like a second rate Baldur’s Gate fan or as some people on here have said ‘not a true fan at all’ just because unlike some of you I am not enraged by Baldur’s Gate 3 not being exactly what some of you had dreamed up in your heads. I appreciate that it goes both ways and some nasty stuff has been said towards the people that are not happy with the direction Baldur’s Gate 3 is going but this really needs to stop. These forums used to be such a nice place to visit. Now it’s just full of toxic arguments. At the end of the day it doesn’t make people any less Baldur’s Gate fans if they think this is a deserving sequel. Not everyone has the same points of view and I think we all just need to accept that and agree to disagree.
@byrne20 " At the end of the day it doesn’t make people any less Baldur’s Gate fans if they think this is a deserving sequel. Not everyone has the same points of view and I think we all just need to accept that and agree to disagree."
Okay I disagree. Now can you guys stop telling us that we can't voice our opinons?
I don't recall calling anyone a second rate fan. I recall pointing out that what's being called Baldur's Gate 3 isn't actually that game. If someone feels like a second rate fan because that's being pointed out? Maybe they should reassess why they feel that way.
You wanna say "I want to like this game"? Sure, go for it. Doesn't make you a second class anything. You wanna say "this IS Baldur's Gate 3", someone's gonna point out it's not. And we are not second rate, or a senile old guy as one person called me, for saying so.
@Arcalian I am now calling every Elder Scrolls game post Oblivion "Oblivion x" now. That's hilarious.
@jjstraka34 You're missing the point. The problem isn't the "Baldur's Gate" in the title, its the "3". A spin-off would be fine (the Dark Alliance games were fine), but the blatant cynicism and falsehood behind calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is EA lootbox levels of bad.
Sigh. SoD was great. I really, REALLY wish we were getting more of that. Beamdog understands the BG spirit better than any other company. I must have fallen into the worst parallell universe at some point.
yet i'm somehow a hypocrite because i used dark alliance as an example and was fine with it.
i know he did not out right call me that but i got that from his post.
again dark alliance is a spin off . it was never pretending to be a sequel to baldurs gate 1 or 2. thats why i also used the bos example. it was not called fallout 3 at all as it was a spin offs.
fallout 3 on the other hand has nothing really to do with the previous games. it was Bethesda cashing in on the name. if anything new vegas is more fallout 3 as t has more in common with 1 and 2.
and thats exactly what larian is doing with bg 3. if people can call fallout 3 oblivion with guns [ which it is] then i have a right to call baldurs gate 3 divinity original sin 3 with a baldurs gate skin.
@Arcalian in fairness I don’t recall seeing you specifically say that but even so it has been said. Either way it doesn’t matter because I’ve also seen people from the other side of the debate say some pretty cruel stuff so it goes both ways.
Like I said you’re entitled to your point of view and I’m sorry if someone called you a senile old man. That is not called for.
I personally am going to stop engaging in any more debate on the matter because the fact is we can argue until we are blue in the face and it won’t change the FACT that Larian are making Baldur’s Gate 3 and no words on this forum will ever change that. I am really excited for it. Getting involved in all this toxic debate is starting to ruin it a bit for me.
I agreee, it really shouldn't be called BG3, it's misleading as it makes you think the game play will be similar or the same as BG1 and BG2. I actually bought Div:OS2 and hated it after being used to BG1 and 2, I played it for a couple of days and now it's in the great bit-bucket in the sky, a waste of money, if I'd have known the game play was different I wouldn't have bought it.
I think the naming of this title (BG3) will hurt Beamdog in that anyone trying BG3, would be put off buying BG1 and BG2 or will get a nasty surprise!
Now can you guys stop telling us that we can't voice our opinons?
Dear Lotti and ThacoBell! I ask you to reconsider the tone. It's been a heated, yes, but respectful discussion about BG3 since the gameplay reveal. People who are excited about BG3, people who are neutral, people who are upset with BG3, - they ALL have the full right to voice their opinion.
And when one from those groups says something, it doesn't require immediate responses from another group. It doesn't require a reaction as if you don't comment, something will stay as 100% truth. Please take into account that any comment is an opinion.
We have high standards for discussion on these boards, let's try and follow them, together. The worst we want to get is people getting discouraged discussing here feeling some pressure and/or disrespect from other users.
Don't target other users in your comments, everyone. Target the arguments that are being brought up.
This is really getting ridiculous. At the end of the day we are all entitled to our opinions but this thread and some others are becoming a joke. I’m getting pretty fed up of coming on this forum and being made to feel like a second rate Baldur’s Gate fan or as some people on here have said ‘not a true fan at all’ just because unlike some of you I am not enraged by Baldur’s Gate 3 not being exactly what some of you had dreamed up in your heads. I appreciate that it goes both ways and some nasty stuff has been said towards the people that are not happy with the direction Baldur’s Gate 3 is going but this really needs to stop. These forums used to be such a nice place to visit. Now it’s just full of toxic arguments. At the end of the day it doesn’t make people any less Baldur’s Gate fans if they think this is a deserving sequel. Not everyone has the same points of view and I think we all just need to accept that and agree to disagree.
I 'feel' (let me make it clear this is just me) that there's this part of gaming where if fans don't voice their concerns (and this is usually not done eloquently) they feel like the game is going to be something they don't want it to be. Fair enough I suppose. I often wonder if they email, fax, snail-mail bands telling them not to make a s!@# album. And I don't particularly wish to talk about Sonic. That was literally one thing, the biggest thing, the most obvious thing, they messed up. There's no nuance to that situation.
This is why I would love to hear from a Beamdog dev regarding what kind of feedback might actually make a dev re-think something. I don't code or make video games, I'm purely a consumer. I still know some things are more difficult than others to do a u-turn on, more time consuming, more expensive. I don't think any dev is going to come out and say, "okay we've put like....30 months of work into this but here is a list of things we could change if you don't like them."
The devs are in a no-win situation if they try to go about pleasing everyone. And they just might end up pleasing no one. Sure there's alpha, beta, early access...but in this instance of BG3...(please correct me if I'm wrong) Larian aren't going to change the engine. No one should have been under the impression this was going to be a RTwP game. They may refine it but it's going to be turn-based and it's not all of a sudden going to be first-person. I see a loooooot of people saying "it's pre-alpha all of this is going to change", and then they cite the engine for some strange reason.
I agree with you. But I have to willingly admit I love the drama. I'm simply fascinated by the dynamic that forms around these events. They all seem to follow the same steps and yet every time a new game is announced and we slog through the process, it's like it's the first time. I can appreciate that a lot of money is on the line but I'd love a little less showmanship. Instead of being coy to the question "will Minsc be in this game?" I'd love an answer of "hard no (even if he ends up being in it anyway)" or "what benefit would I get answering that question?"
The older you get the harder it gets to throw that pitchfork over the shoulder. I've been gaming for over 30 years and I still don't identify with the gaming community at large. It's too diverse and apparently my sliver of it has poor lobbying. I can't imagine how hard it is for a dev these days when everyone wants ultimate transparency and then (somehow) be surprised when the game comes out.
@byrne20 "it won’t change the FACT that Larian are making Baldur’s Gate 3"
Its a fact that Larian are making a D&D game. It being BG3 is easily debateable though. Not a single person has been able to demonstrate how this is a sequel to BG2 in any way. Its a fraudulent title.
@ThacoBell if thinking that makes you feel better then that’s fine Like I said before, you’re very welcome to your opinion but it is exactly that, Your opinion! And that is also a FACT
There are a lot of things in the original BG that just don't appeal for modern gamers, like RTwP or attack rolls that make most of combat chaotic and unpredictable. Larian are able to be creative and decide if that's really the kind of game they're trying to make. So Baldur's Gate 3 is getting substantial mechanics upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad. (C)
Yes, I'm more or less reusing Amber's words on SoD's writing
There are a lot of things in the original BG that just don't appeal for modern gamers, like RTwP or attack rolls that make most of combat chaotic and unpredictable. Larian are able to be creative and decide if that's really the kind of game they're trying to make. So Baldur's Gate 3 is getting substantial mechanics upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad. (C)
Yes, I'm more or less reusing Amber's words on SoD's writing
What's not? Four years ago we had a bunch of enraged fans reeeing because they found the writing not up to their vision of BG. Now we have a bunch of enraged fans reeeing because they find the time system not up to their vision of BG. Spot seven differences.
I mean, I get the sentiment, I'm in much the same boat about another game. Some of you may have played Kings Bounty Legend, a 2007 remake of HoMM series' predecessor - and now they're making Kings Bounty 2, except all the stylish graphics that created the fairy tale atmosphere are being replaced with generic trash assets, because they clearly don't teach in Russia that art design is a real thing... :facepalm: Magic gone, heart broken.
Now, if the point is just to vent away the frustration of having your precious memories trampled and defiled - by all means, who am I to judge. But if someone seriously thinks that Larian's project lead will read an online petition signed by few hundred... disillusioned fans... and exclaim "by god, they're RIGHT, how did I not think of this earlier? Must find Sven and tell him we need to throw two years worth of production away and start anew" - well, that's cute. So cute, that I wanna take it home
i can seee the situation being just like what happend with sod. to me it feels the same yet the sides switched. people that were fine with sod are not fine with bg 3. and the ones that hated on sod are fine with bg 3.
i can seee the situation being just like what happend with sod. to me it feels the same yet the sides switched. people that were fine with sod are not fine with bg 3. and the ones that hated on sod are fine with bg 3.
Well, I wont pretend to speak for everyone - but I was definitely good with SoD, and I am totally fine with BG3. I dont know if this theory will hold up (But maybe it will? I dont exactly know how people have broke down in the pro-SoD vs anti-SoD camp here).
i can seee the situation being just like what happend with sod. to me it feels the same yet the sides switched. people that were fine with sod are not fine with bg 3. and the ones that hated on sod are fine with bg 3.
How about being fine with both of them. Because frankly, I agree that artists should, essentially say, like it or don't, but if you're going to DEMAND I do things a certain way, go pound sand. If I was Larian and I just had the best reviewed RPG of the last decade, why would I sit around listening to people who basically want nothing more than an elaborate Infinity Engine mod?? Which is, quite frankly, exactly what Siege of Dragonspear is. It's a really good, exceptionally long content mod with official licensing.
I think a couple of very interesting points I am picking up on so far story wise are that
1. They are heavily pushing the whole ‘’how will you use the evil power that is inside you’’ which clearly links to the original games in a sense that having the Bhaal blood was also a similar experience.
2. I’ve also seen quite a few mentions that ‘The Dead Three’ are playing a large role in this game if not being the main antagonists.. if that is true then that would mean that Bhaal will be involved as in official lore I believe he has been resurrected now. This point alone would provide a very large link to the previous games
Comments
Evidently you can, and they did. It's their name.
The fact that you grew up in the place doesn't make you an owner. It just gives you memories.
And just like the neighbourhood where you grew up will be uprooted at some point in time, so your Balder's Gate has moved on. A whole new generation lives there that doesn't care too much about the talk of the senile old guys.
Not honestly or correctly you can't. And what you don't seem to get is the neighborhood was paved over and you're pretending it's still a neighborhood. Senility doesn't come into it; facts do. Not claiming ownership, just paying attention to what's actually happening.
but the fact they called it baldurs gate 3 when the plot has nothing at all to do with the bhaalspawn makes it seem like a cash grab. it's a story about you being cursed by a mind flayer. now i also don't like mind flayers so the game was already getting negative points just for them being main villains
and before you say " what about dark alliance?" those games never pretended to be baldurs gate 3 it's obvious those are spin offs. even interplay did not try and pretend say fallout bos was fallout 3.
remove the 3 and people will have less to complain about it.
You're saying that they didn't add "Baldur's Gate" to the titles of those games to sell more copies?? Because otherwise they are wholly indistinguishable from any other console hack n' slash ever made. In fact, Champions of Norrath did it better. So why are Dark Alliance 1 & 2 remembered so fondly, as opposed to about 3 or 4 Lord of the Rings games from the same time period that are nearly identical gameplay-wise?? Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if for many people, Dark Alliance IS what Baldur's Gate is to them, because they have never been a PC gamer.
Which is absolutely not a show of favoritism on WotC's end for a certain Belgium studio.
A couple of thoughts in no order:
1. I honestly feel like BG3 is incorrectly being branded because there are going to be more of these games. More campaigns. More adventures. You should be able to move your characters seamlessly from one campaign to the next once you've purchased it. And having BG3 be the SECOND or THIRD game they put out would do a couple of things; 1) everyone's expectations would be managed as soon as it was announced 2) we would be confident (or not) that they could do the series justice and they'd have the feedback to rectify any missteps 3) It's still going to be wildly popular. 4) Might even have added a RTwP mode based on demand.
The use of the BG name reeks of "we need to take advantage of this as soon as possible." Instead of, "how can we best utilize the name to maximum effect?"
2*. SoD was made in '16 IIRC. This is why the look and feel of BG3 is so foreign. We 'know' that type of game is a possibility. PoE, Tyranny, Pathfinder, etc.
3. IMO enough people follow Larian/DOS and DnD is enough of a pull to not need the hype the BG name brings. You're telling me there's nowhere else in the FRs this came couldn't have been named after? Every BG game is a DnD game. Not every DnD game needs to be a BG game.
EDIT* I don't know how to number
@jjstraka34 You're missing the point. The problem isn't the "Baldur's Gate" in the title, its the "3". A spin-off would be fine (the Dark Alliance games were fine), but the blatant cynicism and falsehood behind calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is EA lootbox levels of bad.
Sigh. SoD was great. I really, REALLY wish we were getting more of that. Beamdog understands the BG spirit better than any other company. I must have fallen into the worst parallell universe at some point.
Okay I disagree. Now can you guys stop telling us that we can't voice our opinons?
You wanna say "I want to like this game"? Sure, go for it. Doesn't make you a second class anything. You wanna say "this IS Baldur's Gate 3", someone's gonna point out it's not. And we are not second rate, or a senile old guy as one person called me, for saying so.
yet i'm somehow a hypocrite because i used dark alliance as an example and was fine with it.
i know he did not out right call me that but i got that from his post.
again dark alliance is a spin off . it was never pretending to be a sequel to baldurs gate 1 or 2. thats why i also used the bos example. it was not called fallout 3 at all as it was a spin offs.
fallout 3 on the other hand has nothing really to do with the previous games. it was Bethesda cashing in on the name. if anything new vegas is more fallout 3 as t has more in common with 1 and 2.
and thats exactly what larian is doing with bg 3. if people can call fallout 3 oblivion with guns [ which it is] then i have a right to call baldurs gate 3 divinity original sin 3 with a baldurs gate skin.
Like I said you’re entitled to your point of view and I’m sorry if someone called you a senile old man. That is not called for.
I personally am going to stop engaging in any more debate on the matter because the fact is we can argue until we are blue in the face and it won’t change the FACT that Larian are making Baldur’s Gate 3 and no words on this forum will ever change that. I am really excited for it. Getting involved in all this toxic debate is starting to ruin it a bit for me.
I think the naming of this title (BG3) will hurt Beamdog in that anyone trying BG3, would be put off buying BG1 and BG2 or will get a nasty surprise!
Dear Lotti and ThacoBell! I ask you to reconsider the tone. It's been a heated, yes, but respectful discussion about BG3 since the gameplay reveal. People who are excited about BG3, people who are neutral, people who are upset with BG3, - they ALL have the full right to voice their opinion.
And when one from those groups says something, it doesn't require immediate responses from another group. It doesn't require a reaction as if you don't comment, something will stay as 100% truth. Please take into account that any comment is an opinion.
We have high standards for discussion on these boards, let's try and follow them, together. The worst we want to get is people getting discouraged discussing here feeling some pressure and/or disrespect from other users.
Don't target other users in your comments, everyone. Target the arguments that are being brought up.
^This!
Just old, or senile old?
I 'feel' (let me make it clear this is just me) that there's this part of gaming where if fans don't voice their concerns (and this is usually not done eloquently) they feel like the game is going to be something they don't want it to be. Fair enough I suppose. I often wonder if they email, fax, snail-mail bands telling them not to make a s!@# album. And I don't particularly wish to talk about Sonic. That was literally one thing, the biggest thing, the most obvious thing, they messed up. There's no nuance to that situation.
This is why I would love to hear from a Beamdog dev regarding what kind of feedback might actually make a dev re-think something. I don't code or make video games, I'm purely a consumer. I still know some things are more difficult than others to do a u-turn on, more time consuming, more expensive. I don't think any dev is going to come out and say, "okay we've put like....30 months of work into this but here is a list of things we could change if you don't like them."
The devs are in a no-win situation if they try to go about pleasing everyone. And they just might end up pleasing no one. Sure there's alpha, beta, early access...but in this instance of BG3...(please correct me if I'm wrong) Larian aren't going to change the engine. No one should have been under the impression this was going to be a RTwP game. They may refine it but it's going to be turn-based and it's not all of a sudden going to be first-person. I see a loooooot of people saying "it's pre-alpha all of this is going to change", and then they cite the engine for some strange reason.
I agree with you. But I have to willingly admit I love the drama. I'm simply fascinated by the dynamic that forms around these events. They all seem to follow the same steps and yet every time a new game is announced and we slog through the process, it's like it's the first time. I can appreciate that a lot of money is on the line but I'd love a little less showmanship. Instead of being coy to the question "will Minsc be in this game?" I'd love an answer of "hard no (even if he ends up being in it anyway)" or "what benefit would I get answering that question?"
The older you get the harder it gets to throw that pitchfork over the shoulder. I've been gaming for over 30 years and I still don't identify with the gaming community at large. It's too diverse and apparently my sliver of it has poor lobbying. I can't imagine how hard it is for a dev these days when everyone wants ultimate transparency and then (somehow) be surprised when the game comes out.
Its a fact that Larian are making a D&D game. It being BG3 is easily debateable though. Not a single person has been able to demonstrate how this is a sequel to BG2 in any way. Its a fraudulent title.
There are a lot of things in the original BG that just don't appeal for modern gamers, like RTwP or attack rolls that make most of combat chaotic and unpredictable. Larian are able to be creative and decide if that's really the kind of game they're trying to make. So Baldur's Gate 3 is getting substantial mechanics upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad. (C)
Except not.
I mean, I get the sentiment, I'm in much the same boat about another game. Some of you may have played Kings Bounty Legend, a 2007 remake of HoMM series' predecessor - and now they're making Kings Bounty 2, except all the stylish graphics that created the fairy tale atmosphere are being replaced with generic trash assets, because they clearly don't teach in Russia that art design is a real thing... :facepalm: Magic gone, heart broken.
Now, if the point is just to vent away the frustration of having your precious memories trampled and defiled - by all means, who am I to judge. But if someone seriously thinks that Larian's project lead will read an online petition signed by few hundred... disillusioned fans... and exclaim "by god, they're RIGHT, how did I not think of this earlier? Must find Sven and tell him we need to throw two years worth of production away and start anew" - well, that's cute. So cute, that I wanna take it home
Well, I wont pretend to speak for everyone - but I was definitely good with SoD, and I am totally fine with BG3. I dont know if this theory will hold up (But maybe it will? I dont exactly know how people have broke down in the pro-SoD vs anti-SoD camp here).
I also love what I’ve seen of Baldur’s Gate 3 so far so I fear you may be slightly off base there @megamike15
How about being fine with both of them. Because frankly, I agree that artists should, essentially say, like it or don't, but if you're going to DEMAND I do things a certain way, go pound sand. If I was Larian and I just had the best reviewed RPG of the last decade, why would I sit around listening to people who basically want nothing more than an elaborate Infinity Engine mod?? Which is, quite frankly, exactly what Siege of Dragonspear is. It's a really good, exceptionally long content mod with official licensing.
1. They are heavily pushing the whole ‘’how will you use the evil power that is inside you’’ which clearly links to the original games in a sense that having the Bhaal blood was also a similar experience.
2. I’ve also seen quite a few mentions that ‘The Dead Three’ are playing a large role in this game if not being the main antagonists.. if that is true then that would mean that Bhaal will be involved as in official lore I believe he has been resurrected now. This point alone would provide a very large link to the previous games