The Future of Infinity

Chow

There's been some talk about how if this whole project goes well enough, there may be a third game to the series. And while I have absolutely nothing against seeing some new AD&D 2nd edition games on Infinity Engine - nay, I whole-heartedly approve of the idea - I do hope with all my fiber that it's not Baldur's Gate 3.

The story of Baldur's Gate is pretty undeniably over. The protagonist has gone through basically everything in the first two games (plus expansions), dealing with all adversity and every single issue there was, and there is really nothing much left for him or her to do. It would have to start with an entirely new story, and naming that story as Baldur's Gate 3 would be just another example of creative sterility when it comes to naming things, unable to come up with anything new, and riding with the fame of the original name - hell, even Baldur's Gate 2 had nothing to do with anything named Baldur's Gate anymore, so they might as well have just called it Shadows of Amn.

Also, the team behind the game would be entirely different than the one the created the first two, from what I've gathered, and naming their product explicitly as the third game in the series would draw in inevitable comparisons and which game would be better - and more likely than not, the new game would lose, because sad as it is to admit, they don't make games like Baldur's Gate anymore. Better to just give it a whole new name to avoid the worst.

How about something to do with Neverwinter? I'd love to get to visit that plac- no, nevermind, it's already taken. Hmm... Waterdeep? Nah, too close. Shining South? Something to do with Halruaa or the halflings of Luiren? I'd be down for that... oh! Now I got it!

Al-Qadim!

A one thousand and one nights of exciting adventure in Zakhara, the Land of Fate, far south from Faerun! Deserts and genies and flying carpets and oh my... where can I throw my money? The best part would be that the Wizards probably don't give a damn about the place and would let you do whatever you want with it instead of throttling you with contracts - indeed, that's basically how the setting itself escaped the machinations of the evil sorceress-queen Lorraine Williams back in the day.

It'd also allow for some extra racial diversity, for those of us that'd rather play an orc or a kobold or whatever instead of the usual humans and elves and dwarves, because Zakhara is a tolerable place like that.

I mean, of course we'll do Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dales first, but... damn.

Kamigoroshi

The desert setting of Al-Qadim is indeed interesting. But why limit a *new* cRPG D&D title to the Forgotten Realms? What about, dare I say, Dark Sun? The flavour of this post-apocalyptic desert fantasy setting still runs strong even after all these years. WotC even officially resurrected the campaign setting two years ago. True... it now suffers through the dreadful 4e ruleset, but that's still better than to lose one of the best AD&D campaign settings forever in the currents of time .

Chow

I was never too big on post-apocalyptic, personally. It's all too depressing to me and I would prefer a more live world.

Also, technically, Al-Qadim is already outside Forgotten Realms. FR only consists of the continent of Faerun, which Zakhara isn't a part of.

Edit: But of course, since we're already thinking on pretty long run, what's stopping them from compromising and making both?

Deucetipher

I'd like to see Maztica, personally. That being said, what if you took on the role of the bhaalspawnspawn .

All the romance epilogues hint at a story in the making. The major downside would be the drastic limitation on race choices.

Alternatively, they could make the bhaalspawnspawn be a member of your party but still play a major plot point, like Immy in SoA.

mjs

or an option to stay with the Bhaalspawn legacy, do the Time of Troubles.

the Higher Level Encounters and bosses could be the fallen Gods.

a party of adventures trying to make their fortune in the chaotic times? some cameos from characters we've met in BG trilogy thrown in there too?

moody_mage

BG3 should totally be the story of how, inspired by meeting [CHARNAME] Noober takes up arms (or staff, the choice is yours!) and adventures the realms defeating foes and setting wrongs to rights eventually rising to challenge the Bhallspawn himself.

Or something like like.

Humanoid_Taifun

Chow said:

The story of Baldur's Gate is pretty undeniably over. The protagonist has gone through basically everything in the first two games (plus expansions), dealing with all adversity and every single issue there was, and there is really nothing much left for him or her to do.

Of course, Baldur's Gate was originally planned as a trilogy. Wouldn't you like to see the last part expanded into a full game instead of just a thin corridor full of monsters?
(not saying it's going to happen)

joshykins

Kamigoroshi said:

The desert setting of Al-Qadim is indeed interesting. But why limit a *new* cRPG D&D title to the Forgotten Realms? What about, dare I say, Dark Sun? The flavour of this post-apocalyptic desert fantasy setting still runs strong even after all these years. WotC even officially resurrected the campaign setting two years ago. True... it now suffers through the dreadful 4e ruleset, but that's still better than to lose one of the best AD&D campaign settings forever in the currents of time .

Limit?? The Forgotten Realms is nothing short of massive! It's universe is beyond anything that video games have touched. Although you raise an interesting point, I must say. However, the Dark Sun setting, having a very post apocalyptic feel to it might come off as a bit "over done" when you take into consideration of all the games set in a similar world in the last few years.

Chow

Humanoid_Taifun said:

Of course, Baldur's Gate was originally planned as a trilogy. Wouldn't you like to see the last part expanded into a full game instead of just a thin corridor full of monsters?
(not saying it's going to happen)

If we got Baldur's Gate 3: Throne of Bhaal, instead of the expansion? Why yes, I'd be perfectly down for that. I'm not entirely sure the current team had the ability to hold the candle to the original with it, though: that issue was raised in my original post and is still valid with this.

And yes, any thought towards that sort of a direction is, more likely than not, nothing but pure speculation that will never happen anyway.

Mordeus

I think the use of the Baldur's Gate name in any potential sequel is due to it being a sequel in terms of gameplay, not story. Not to mention that securing the rights to the Baldur's Gate name might be easier for Overhaul after they make their name developing expansions to BG1 and BG2, than say acquiring the intellectual rights to Icewind Dale or Neverwinter Nights from whoever owns them now. Overhaul doesn't have the rights to Baldur's Gate 3 but it seems more likely than anything other established franchise.

Besides there is nothing wrong with using the setting of Baldur's Gate but telling a story that is far removed from the events of the Bhaalspawn Saga. Afterall that is what happened with the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games. And the intent behind the original concept for a Baldur's Gate 3, namely Baldur's Gate 3: the Black Hound.

I think if any game was set in the Sword Coast, then it is enough justification for the Baldur's Gate name. Since Baldur's Gate 2 explored the South of Baldur's Gate, I'd go North along the Trade Way where Waterdeep could be used as cutoff point. Due to the size of Waterdeep they'd have to partition sections off like they did with Athkatla. They could also reuse the port section of Baldur's Gate while partitioning off the rest while focusing on the port section of Waterdeep. With the towns of Secomber and Daggerford inbetween and with optional dungeons of the ruins of Dragonspear Castle or Larloch's Crypt.

I was never a fan of using Tethyr in Throne of Bhaal, seemed too exotic for the Baldur's Gate name. So going south to Calimshan would be even more foreign. And going north beyond Waterdeep would encroach on NWN and IWD territory.

Either that of go West from Baldur's Gate to the Moonshae Isles. Primarily to the island of Alaron but also the Amn colonies of Snowdown and Mintarn. The port of Baldur's Gate would be a great jump off point or starting hub. You could reuse all the pre-existing backdrops Depending on how much Overhaul can commit to the game at one time, the setting of Moonshae might be handy because you could flesh out one island, then months later add another and then another. Without making it look like there are unexplored regions that you can't walk to.

I wonder if they could track down the voice actor who did Saemon. The Moonshae Isles would be the perfect location for him, maybe then we could finally have him as a NPC. If you can introduce a link to Baldur's Gate and bring in some iconic character from the previous games, then there is enough to earn the franchise's title. I don't think you'd need anything epic like the Bhaalspawn Saga to make a good Baldur's Gate game. You just need a good setting for exploration. But at the end of the day it is all up to what Overhaul can achieve with their very limited resources. Maybe they will be forced to be a bit economical in how they approach the sequel.

Chow

@Mordeus: I disagree on most counts. If the story doesn't at any point take place in the city of Baldur's Gate, let alone feature it as an important setting, and doesn't have anything concrete to do with the story of those games, then there is not much reason it should be named Baldur's Gate. It's not even the central hub of the Forgotten Realms setting: Waterdeep, Neverwinter, and the nation of Cormyr are all more important than this one city.

As for the terms of gameplay thing, Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment were cast in the same mold - even if they were more combat-heavy and basically a visual novel, respectively - yet they were not named Baldur's Gate.

Whatever the case, it would be much better if they named it as something entirely different, rather than use the old name just for the sake of attracting old fans with a familiar name, most of whom would be down for this new game anyway.

I'd be entirely good with an adventure set to Moonshae Isles, however. And indeed, while acquiring intellectual rights to Icewind Dale or especially Neverwinter Nights would be tough, I doubt anyone would seriously oppose them using this bunch of little islands that nobody cares about (or so they perceive). I used the same logic in suggesting Al-Qadim, which no one has ever thought much of, but which is regardless a very flavored and awesome setting.

Calmar

I see, I've been beaten with my new information... Delete please

csuzw

I don't see any reason why a BG3 wouldn't be possible as long you start with a new PC (preferably low level as high level 2e is a bit rubbish). Set it after the events of Throne of Bhaal, set it in/around the City of Baldur's Gate again but explore north of the city, including Waterdeep perhaps. Have it set against some new conflict between 2 gods with 1 of those gods being your original PC (could import ToB save to determine whether he's the good or bad variety of god). Anyway that's just 1 idea but I certainly think there is scope for a 3rd game in the series that builds on what's gone before. I'm not sure Overhaul are capable of doing it justice but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Mordeus

@Chow My biggest concern is making the sequel or whatever endeavour outside of the Enhanced Editions a much bigger task for Overhaul than needed. Considering that they are a studio of 12, building something completely from the ground up might be daunting or not so economical for a company starting out.

The Baldur's Game name provides more than just a setting but a specific framework. Whilst it shares the same game engine as IWD and PST, the similarities pretty much stop there. I would have loved IWD a whole lot more if had the same character as Baldur's Gate. The elements of non-linearity, quirky NPCs, anachronisms, in-jokes, etc... are uniquely Baldur's Gate.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of a brand. For those of us keeping tabs on Baldur's Gate and Overhaul, creating or adopting a completely new franchise wouldn't be so terrible. But there is a legacy to the Baldur's Gate brand, not to mention that the mere question over a Baldur's Gate sequel has been alive for the past decade. It's be on many a gamer's wishlist for a long time.

By the end of the Enhanced Editions Overhaul will be well practiced in making a Baldur's Gate game and will be totally immersed in the lore. They'd be in the perfect position to spring right into making a game under the Baldur's Gate name. It will be the company's first test in making a game from the ground up since previous Overhaul titles have been Enhanced Editions aka ports.

It might actually be a bit of a blessing that Baldur's Gate isn't the central hub of the Forgotten Realms considering the scope of Overhaul. A small scope might be best for this future project. Besides there are many ways one could interpret the idea of a sequel. There's one way of seeing it as a sequel to the Bhaalspawn saga or it could just be a sequel to the story of Baldur's Gate the city. There's enough untouched lore about the city and its' founder Balduran. Or it could just be a spiritual sequel in terms of how it approaches gameplay and characterisation. It really comes down to what the development team can afford to do and what they'd profit from the most. They are building up capital from the Enhanced Editions that it just makes sense for them to milk it.

Chow

The power of a brand is a two-edged sword: it means they will be compared to the earlier games much more than they otherwise would be. Making a completely unrelated game with the same system and engine, but different story, would not be a great deal more difficult than adding up to an existing one, keep us interested regardless because they'll have proven themselves by that point, but remove a great deal of pressure they would have in living up to the name.

cyberarmy

Now now, i would sell some of my body parts for an IE powered Al-Qadim! game.
On the other hand i would gladly sell some slaves, illegal products and/or my soul for a game in the world of Dark Sun!

And there is also there is always Ravenloft, waiting in shadows

fpc1

I agree with Chow. Every time that I read someone saying that they want a Baldur's Gate 3, I wonder if they really finished the entire BG Saga or if they simply didn't understand the story very well. In fact, most of these people don't really want a Baldur's Gate game. They just want to roam Faerun with a new protagonist.

Overhaul Games doesn't need to create a new game called "Baldur's Gate" to use the Forgotten Realms setting. They want to do that for marketing purposes, because it will sell more copies of the game.

Andraste

Personally, I'm sad that there was never a Dragonlance game for the Infinity Engine. The last time someone made a game in that setting was 1992.

If they do make BG3, I hope that it a) has something to do with Baldur's Gate and b) does not star the Bhaalspawn or their offspring. I don't see any way they could pull that off without annoying a lot of players.

Mordeus

It is a bit of a gamble but the rewards of success are more appealing than competing with a completely new intellectual property. Otherwise they'd have to compete with a pretty strong marketing campaign rather than rely on the word of mouth advertising. The amount of media coverage they received merely mentioning the name Baldur's Gate was pretty impressive. I'd imagine that they'd be able to hedge their bets by looking at the response to the Enhanced Editions and by looking back on what they were able to achieve.

Realistically they won't be able to outdo BG1 or BG2, even competing purely against their nostalgia value. But there are paths that they could take that makes BG3 a worthy sequel, provided that they don't spread themselves too thin. They could take the Dark Alliance route and avoid doing a numbered sequel altogether.

I think the biggest danger for Overhaul would be to go too niche with their attempt at making their first game from scratch. If that fails to even meet the target for pre-orders their plan for more original games could be cut short financially. Part of what makes Overhaul so appealing in the first place is their focus on nostalgia, that has given them the opportunity in the first place to work on an infinity engine game. The success of the Bioware's BG1 and BG2 laid the foundation for Black Isle to do the more niche IWD, IWD2 and PST, without that foundation I'm not so sure if IWD or PST would have come about. Overhaul needs to be slightly more established to attempt a completely new intellectual property.

atcDave

I would love to see a BG3 set in Faerun. While I think good games could be made for any of the official settings (past or present, Greyhawk anyone?!). But I can think of another excellent reason for sticking with the Baldur's Gate name, it may be linked to the 2E rules set. My guess would be that Wizards of the Coast would prefer one of the newer rules sets to be used. I can easily see a smaller studio like Overhaul wanting to keep as much of the original game engine as possible. Which leads to a very fortunate situation; they would be strongly motivated to use the established game engine and rules set. Since I love both Infinity Engine and 2E rules, that sounds very promising to me.

Shadowdemon

I don't think WOC would OK an Al-Qadim game as the brand was abandoned when they went to the 3rd edition (just like Ravenloft & Planescape). This setting was part of the Realms so it may be do-able w/o the brand name.

The only way this could happen is if they would make the game in the AD&D ruleset, but WOC would insist on the most recent ruleset (4e or Next). In fact InXile just talked to them about a new Torment game and WOC basically ignored them.

Now a Dark Sun game would be awesome. They just brought that world back recently. Dark Sun Shattered Lands & Wake of the Ravager were my favorite games back in the day.

bdeonovic

Chow said:

@Mordeus: I disagree on most counts. If the story doesn't at any point take place in the city of Baldur's Gate, let alone feature it as an important setting, and doesn't have anything concrete to do with the story of those games, then there is not much reason it should be named Baldur's Gate. It's not even the central hub of the Forgotten Realms setting: Waterdeep, Neverwinter, and the nation of Cormyr are all more important than this one city.

As for the terms of gameplay thing, Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment were cast in the same mold - even if they were more combat-heavy and basically a visual novel, respectively - yet they were not named Baldur's Gate.

Whatever the case, it would be much better if they named it as something entirely different, rather than use the old name just for the sake of attracting old fans with a familiar name, most of whom would be down for this new game anyway.

I'd be entirely good with an adventure set to Moonshae Isles, however. And indeed, while acquiring intellectual rights to Icewind Dale or especially Neverwinter Nights would be tough, I doubt anyone would seriously oppose them using this bunch of little islands that nobody cares about (or so they perceive). I used the same logic in suggesting Al-Qadim, which no one has ever thought much of, but which is regardless a very flavored and awesome setting.

baldurs gate 2 didn't feature the city of baldur's gate...so why does baldurs gate 3? I think @Mordeus raises great points about how its really the setting that earns the title of baldurs gate.

Chow

Shadowdemon said:

I don't think WOC would OK an Al-Qadim game as the brand was abandoned when they went to the 3rd edition (just like Ravenloft & Planescape).

Personally I don't think the entire edition issue matters much these days. Most of Infinity games were made on 2e, so I reckon Al-Qadim would be okay in that regard as well, being a 2nd edition setting.

bdeonovic said:

baldurs gate 2 didn't feature the city of baldur's gate...so why does baldurs gate 3?

Baldur's Gate 2 was sort of half-and-half: it didn't feature the city, but it directly continued the story established in the first game, so even if it doesn't qualify entirely, it would get a bit of a pass.

Baldur's Gate 3, though, with an entirely new party, entirely new story, set in somewhere else once again? It would have nothing to connect it to the earlier games, and no right whatsoever to bear that name.

mch202

Icewind dale 2 and Icewind dale 1 have nothing in common but some geographic areas, yet they bear the same name.


Anyway a new game which is set in Faerun will be probably 5e ( because Wotc would want to promote the new edition ) - which means ~100 years after ToB. Baldur's Gate by this time is 4 times bigger.

I don't see a reason why not to make BG3 which will be set in the Sword Coast, new party, new story but with some things that will be connect to the BG Saga such as NPCs from the long-lived races such as elf/dwarfs ( Yeslick,Korgan, Viconia.. ), mentions of the events etc.


Here is a another discussion about BG3 made by Phillip Daigle

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3134/an-entirely-unofficial-poll-that-has-no-bearing-on-reality-baldurs-gate-3/p1

PhillipDaigle said:

I'm sure some people would like to discuss which version of the D&D rules they would prefer, and that's fine. But be aware: if a BG3 were to happen, it would most likely use whatever current D&D rules WOTC has, rather than an older rule set. Some people may not like this, but keep in mind that it makes sense for a company to promote the latest incarnation of their ruleset and you can't really expect them to do otherwise.

Chow

mch202 said:

Icewind dale 2 and Icewind dale 1 have nothing in common but some geographic areas, yet they bear the same name.

They were both set in Icewind Dale, which I believe is good enough justification to carry the same name.

Basically the entire opposite of Baldur's Gate issue: whereas BG2 continued the story of the first and therefore carried its name along with it, IWD2 had a whole different story but was otherwise still entirely accurate as names go.

As for using the new edition? I don't know... if they did make a game for promoting the new edition of D&D, they'd make this big epic thing that may or may not have something to do with BG, and most definitely will not be given for a little team like Overhaul to handle. Meanwhile, they might let this little bunch do a small Moonshae or Al-Qadim game set in the 2nd edition, because why not?

Kamigoroshi

Well, of course WotC is interested to promote their newest edition ruleset whereever possible. The old, dusty and out-of-print campaign setting ruleset books won't bring them money. It's business after all.
Over the past couple of years there were alot of game makers who wanted to use some of the old AD&D campaign settings for their games - the latest being Inxile Entertainment which wanted to use the Planescape campaign setting. None of them were successful to persuade WotC, and it's very likely none will ever be.

As it stands now, the only chance to see new games using any of the "old" Greyhawk, Birthright, Dragonlance, Blackmoor, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Mystara, Kara-Tur or Al-Qadim campaign settings is for WotC to resurrect them. They already did it with Dark Sun, so it's not impossible. But when they do the campaign settings will be updated...or downgraded, depending on how you view it.

TheSwamper

The rules for the new edition likely won't be official for at least another year. That means Infinity would have to wait at least that long to start a big chunk of the game.

Eldryth

TheSwamper said:

The rules for the new edition likely won't be official for at least another year. That means Infinity would have to wait at least that long to start a big chunk of the game.

They have to finish BG2:EE first too, so it won't be that long a wait for the rules.

Frosty

There is no way Hasbro whould alow a new 2ed game to be made, any new game whould have to use the 4ed rules that I hate, And atari owes the exsclisive right to making DnD computer games. But thay have not done a thing with the franchise in a long time.

Eldryth

Frosty said:

There is no way Hasbro whould alow a new 2ed game to be made, any new game whould have to use the 4ed rules that I hate, And atari owes the exsclisive right to making DnD computer games. But thay have not done a thing with the franchise in a long time.

Pretty sure Atari doesn't have those rights anymore- at the very least, it must have ceased being exclusive when they passed Neverwinter on to Perfect World. Even so, I'm almost certain WotC can give others permission to make games if needed (or they can make Atari publish it).

Mordeus

If licensing of 2ed rules is a problem, maybe they could find a loophole to the whole situation. Throne of Bhaal was more than just an expansion but rather a sequel to Shadows of Amn, so in a way it was a Baldur's Gate 3. So maybe a sequel to Baldur's Gate comes in the guise of an expansion like Throne of Bhaal? Maybe the sequel is Throne of Bhaal Enhanced?

It all depends on what the contractual agreement stipulates especially concerning "expansions" but I wonder if it would be possible to retool Throne of Bhaal from an expansion into a fully fledged Baldur's Gate 3. There is alot of Tethyr that wasn't used (especially the western portions) in ToB such as:

- The Capital of Tethyr, Darromar.
- Castle Tethyr.
- The Gensai village of Argentor located within the Spires of Mir.
- Cape Velen and the Nelanther Isles.
- The Starspire Mountains and the port city of Zazesspur.
- Unexplored areas within the Wealdath/Forest of Tethir like the Necropolis of Myth Rhynn.

These areas could be added as either optional adventures or places to go in between the dungeons of the Five. A place like Darromar could take over the tutorial city of Saradush since later on in ToB there is an absence of a city to go to.

I wonder if they could convince the powers that be that splitting Throne of Bhaal into its' own separate game would be worthwhile. Or rather something they will be 'forced' to do if Baldur's Gate 2 is to meet the 2gb limit for the Ipad. I think this might be a bit of a crafty solution in making a sequel that is 2ed.