They could choose not to get the IP if its not something they can treat with respect. Getting it anyway and shitting on the previous games makes this a cash grab.
Just because there's a '3' in the name doesn't mean it should feel like a clone of '2', especially when the studio changes. Dune II was a completely different game from Dune. GTA 3 was completely different from GTA 1/2. Armored Core. Max Payne. Wasteland.
Sports game and certain shooters are widely mocked (among nerds) for being basically identical release after release.
Absolutely is if you are pretending to make a sequel to someone else's game.
> Just because there's a '3' in the name doesn't mean it should feel like a clone of '2', especially when the studio changes.
You got that the wrong way around. The original team wanting to go in a different direction is one thing. But a completely different studio wanting to create something very different from the original game should just do that and create a separate game instead of a purpoted sequel. So yes, a different studio being given the license for the sequel (which is already a very questionable practice that rights holders should be called out for) should strive to mimick the feel of the original game very closely.
> Sports game and certain shooters are widely mocked (among nerds) for being basically identical release after release.
What an absurd comparison. Literally taking the infinity engine with BG2 systems and creating a new campaign with that would not even be close to the yearly EA rereleases. And no, I'm not saying that there can't be any changes at all but Larian went well beyond what would be needed to update the game for $current_year audience.
I'm just going to have to fundamentally agree to disagree. I would 100% endorse this quote if we were talking about novels or theatrical plays, and maybe 50% if talking about movies (Godfather? Yes. Alien? Nah).
But a game, outside of odd niches like visual novels or 'walking simulators', is a much more open-ended experience, and the expectation of a sequel is not merely to continue the story - that's typically called an 'expansion', a concept that doesn't exist in novels or movies. A sequel is generally expected to innovate, and the longer since the previous title the more innovation is expected.
"BG3" on the otherhand innovates on Divinity: Original Sin 2 instead and then slaps a Baldur's Gate paint on the result.
I also don't see why games should be inherently different from other media in this respect. Yes, games are often seen as lesser art compared to more established forms but this is (in part) a result of them being treated as products first and not a justification for it.
Do you think that the setting, themes, story, and RPG rules are just 'paint'? Is the Infinity Engine so much more important than the Forgotten Realms?
> I also don't see why games should be inherently different from other media in this respect.
Because games aren't media: games are media generators. The same game can be a tragedy to one player and a comedy to another. So you can have two different kinds of follow-ups: ones that simply generate more media in the same way ( = expansion), or ones that improve on how the media is generate ( = sequel). The distinction doesn't make sense for fixed media like novels or films.
Note that I'm not talking about video games in particular, it applies to any kind of game. If I publish a book that adds a new secret level to the crypt of Acererak in the same style as the original, it's an expansion. If I publish a story about a different crypt that feels connected to the original but with its own unique design choices, that's when I can call it Tomb of Horrors 2.