Beamdog Shouldn't Make BG3 - They Should Crowd Fund Their Own Game
marceror
Member Posts: 577
In my humble opinion Baldur's Gate 3 should be a 2D isometric type game, just like BG and BG2 are. Project Eternity and Planescape Tides of Numenera have shown just how amazing this approach can look in the 2010s. And by taking a more simplistic approach to the visuals, the developer can devote the core of its development time to building a huge, immersive world, a rich and deep story and well fleshed out, memorable characters. In other words, this approach allows for BG3 to be developed in a way that honors BG and BG2.
We just have one small, *teeny-weeny* problem...!
Atari (and likely any larger publisher) would never let the game be developed this way. With them, the core of the budget would most likely go into pricey voice acting using big name actors, building a complex 3D engine where tons of time is spent making sure that we can see the fear in the orc's eye before he gets singed by a fireball spell. And with so much effort put on such details, things like game content, character development and a lot of other stuff is certain to get cut. Hell, if Neverwinter is any indication we may not even get all of the proper base classes included, but just a small subset. And almost certainly, the name Baldur's Gate 3 will be wholly undeserved and out of place on whatever final product is released.
So with that said, my personal view is that the best way to make Baldur's Gate 3 is to use the crowd funding model. Okay, sure, that means Beamdog doesn't get to call it Baldur's Gate 3 -- but really, what's in a name, right? It also means that the D&D ruleset & universe couldn't be used, but honestly, PC games made using this IP haven't been good quality since the Infinity Engine days (Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 are reasonable exception to this rule, granted, and Temple of Elemental Evil is excellent is many regards too, but lacking in many others). And the trend only seems to be getting worse.
I'd prefer to see Beamdog use the name recognition they are gaining with the BGEE project, and then create their own IP and engine to create a game that truly follows the tradition of Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine games. Obsidian and nXile have figured out that this is the way to go. I would love to see Beamdog go this route as well, rather than creating what I'm convinced would otherwise be a major disappointment with Atari at the helm.
My 2 copper. What do you all think?
EDIT - Updated post title to better reflect the content of my post
We just have one small, *teeny-weeny* problem...!
Atari (and likely any larger publisher) would never let the game be developed this way. With them, the core of the budget would most likely go into pricey voice acting using big name actors, building a complex 3D engine where tons of time is spent making sure that we can see the fear in the orc's eye before he gets singed by a fireball spell. And with so much effort put on such details, things like game content, character development and a lot of other stuff is certain to get cut. Hell, if Neverwinter is any indication we may not even get all of the proper base classes included, but just a small subset. And almost certainly, the name Baldur's Gate 3 will be wholly undeserved and out of place on whatever final product is released.
So with that said, my personal view is that the best way to make Baldur's Gate 3 is to use the crowd funding model. Okay, sure, that means Beamdog doesn't get to call it Baldur's Gate 3 -- but really, what's in a name, right? It also means that the D&D ruleset & universe couldn't be used, but honestly, PC games made using this IP haven't been good quality since the Infinity Engine days (Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 are reasonable exception to this rule, granted, and Temple of Elemental Evil is excellent is many regards too, but lacking in many others). And the trend only seems to be getting worse.
I'd prefer to see Beamdog use the name recognition they are gaining with the BGEE project, and then create their own IP and engine to create a game that truly follows the tradition of Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine games. Obsidian and nXile have figured out that this is the way to go. I would love to see Beamdog go this route as well, rather than creating what I'm convinced would otherwise be a major disappointment with Atari at the helm.
My 2 copper. What do you all think?
EDIT - Updated post title to better reflect the content of my post
Post edited by marceror on
20
Comments
*sign*
I thought I that was writing "absolute truth" when I posted it, but what the hell do I know? :P
Agreed with your standpoint though. BG is great because of the gameplay and quality in writing. The name will only weigh developers down. Go independent and make something great I say.
On your point of crowdfunding, the sole reason for giving the game the name "BG" is to win the wallets of fans loyal to the game so Beamdog can make more money. Publishers will likely buy the idea ONLY if it has the BG name, otherwise it would be a nameless title that has to earn popularity from scratch.
Therefore if Beamdog wants to make a standalone infinity engine game that is half decent, they would Need to crowdfund it. Otherwise, if they made BG3, it would be a sub-par ripoff. But it would (might) be profitable for Beamdog and the publisher.
Big Game Corporations have become the bane of good gaming.
Let them rot -- and let Beamdog, Stardock and others provide us with good quality content with our money directly into them and not to men-in-suits.
commercially they may be better of building on an established name then building an entirely new franchise
also developing bg3 would allow them to use pre existing content like rule sets lore etc if they went there own way they would have to develop all this stuff from scratch which would likely cost quite a lot
also as a side note do we have any idea how bg3 would actually work? as in do Atari hold any rights to any new games or do they just own existing content in the franchise?
However, as much as the people that post here are die hard fans, I don't think they have the same level of support Obsidian has to make it a reality, especially if they have to create an entire campaign setting from scratch.
For them to do this, they need to get more revenue flowing, prove that they can create a compelling story and game play in a set campaign world (IE BG3) and then translate that success into their own creation.
In my humble opinion, they are far from that goal, but still striving towards it. Rushing there will only cause failure.
On topic: it's one thing to "enhance" (for relative values of enhancement) existing games, it's quite another to make new ones from scratch. Going by BG:EE (at least for the moment), I don't think Beamdog has earned the kind of blind trust it would take to push a Kickstarter through.
On the other hand, there's always the chance that BG2:EE's new content will blow the old stuff out of the water, in which case they'll have proven they have the creative vision necessary to complete more ambitious projects.
The idea is, keep the big publishers out of the loop, ESPECIALLY Atari, because these guys don't support the kind of game that Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine represent. There seem to be a lot of ways to skin this cat. I sure hope that Beamdog will at least seriously consider this sort of approach.
On another note, wow, make your subject more compelling and suddenly you have a dialogue - Nice!
On the one hand, I absolutely support any potential BG3 (or BG3 type game) being developed by a company that is more about providing a good quality game than most big companies seem to be about these days. I think a smaller game company has less of a bottom line to worry about and are less likely to sell out to more "casual gamer" archetypes when making certain decisions than a bigger company might. And why not a company that has worked on the product as much as these guys have?
On the other hand though, I don't see Atari/Wizards allowing anything 'similar' in rules being released without some serious level of control over it. that pretty much means that a whole new rules set needs to be invented, test played and then implemented. While I think the guys at Overhaul could do it, it would require a much bigger investment in time and effort. And would have to be sufficiently different enough from BG2 engine/rules so as not to create any legal type problems. That could it might be hard to create something as in depth and with the same level of fun/complexity as current BG games without falling victim to any number of potential issues, regardless of who the development house is. Basically, the further separate it is from BG, the less legal problems, but potentially the greater the risk of it not being 'BG' (spiritually or otherwise).
It seems there is an old-school niche for isometric party-based RPGs and I heartily approve.
Something tells me that a lot of players are similar in age and circumstances to me and probably would have similar experience.
Edit: IMO of course
http://company.wizards.com/content/hasbro-and-atari-resolve-dungeons-dragons-rights-dispute
Hasbro would probably be involved with BG3, not Atari. However I don't know if they would be any different as we haven't seen a D&D game released from them since the rights returned to them.
I know there is a Pathfinder game being developed currently (Goblinworks) but they have taken the 1st Person sandbox MMORPG approach (yawn). Surely there's room for a new Isometric game with the roleplaying empasis that provides that 'isn't' Baldur's Gate?
A new modern engine is desperately needed, but a 2D isometric one. This has already been done in lots of modern Indie games such as Magicka, Bastion, and Path of Exile as examples, but none of these obviosly share the gameplay experience of the BG series.
And the problem with recreating the gameplay experience of BG in a new game as we all know is Atari and WOTSC's terrible licensing rules. They had something so great wigh BG and AD&D2, but since then they've continuously gone downhill.
I have many dreams of a 'Baldur's Gate clone' type game, but no one ever makes them despite hgow great the game was, while we have an abundance of Diablo clones. Now heres the thing, if a developer makes an entirely new game, story and plot, but maintains the same gameplay as BG, but simply calls it something other than anything named from the D&D universe, then I cant see how that wouldnt be allowed as its a different game, just with similar gameplay.
DAO came close to this vision, but even it was still far too oversimplified. And just about every modern day RPG has scrapped the idea of group based isometric strategy combat and they are mostly just 3D hack and slash based combat to appeal to console gamers,
A public kickstarter funded Baldur's Gate clone type game would be hugely popular, I dont get why every developer is so afraid to try this, theres a huge niche, but profitable market that has remained untapped since BG2 still waiting for a decent successor game that no one ever makes.
I agree that the Infinity Engine is old. It is incredibly impressive what Beamdog has done to update it and make it work on modern systems. That said, I don't really see it as a viable platform for new games. I remain hopeful that we might see enhanced versions of IWD1&2, and PS:T. If I were going to make a new game, like BG3, I would probably do what Obsidian is doing, and go with Unity, as a low cost all-in-one solution.
-First, BG story is told, unless they somehow want to tie on story (bad idea) or place.
-I doubt they would be able to use 2nd edition D&D, what also rules out previous point I guess.
-The only reason they would do it would be marketing and I´m not fan of such strategies, plus I doubt it would make the game best-seller. People who are looking for these RPGs will always find out about them and making the game for wider audience will only end up like another Dragon Age.