The Redundancy of Baldur's Gate 3
recklessheart
Member Posts: 692
People everywhere on the forums are harking on about the possibility of a Baldur's Gate 3 following (fingers crossed!) the success of BG:EE. I would love BG:EE to be a huge hit, and I'm very much so looking forward to it. Others, however, are perturbed that it may be a perversion of the original game. This isn't the point of my post, but relates to the point I'm going to make.
A Baldur's Gate 3 will not please everybody. Nor will BG:EE. However, there's no reason why BG3 has to be related to the series. Most people agree that BG3 should feature a new adventure and a new protagonist, as the story of the Bhaalspawn has been concluded with ToB. BG:EE is inextricably related to the original game, and so hardcore fan criticism will be, to an extent, inevitable.
But if the majority agree that BG3 should be a totally different story with a totally different protagonist (perhaps even, in a totally new FR setting, like Tethyr, Cormyr or Damara), then why call it 'BG3'? Is it a project name? That would be understandable.
I would love nothing more than another Infinity Engine creation that retains the spirit of Baldur's Gate, but my argument is that there is no reason to call it "Baldur's Gate 3"; at the end of the day, this will only serve to alienate fans of the series. Feeding off the namesake of, albeit, the best RPG ever, will not, I hypothesise, be positive in the long-term.
I would love BG:EE and BG2:EE to spawn another Infinity Engine Forgotten Realms adventure - I don't think any news on the gaming scene would please me more, in fact! But please, PLEASE: Don't call it Baldur's Gate 3!!
A Baldur's Gate 3 will not please everybody. Nor will BG:EE. However, there's no reason why BG3 has to be related to the series. Most people agree that BG3 should feature a new adventure and a new protagonist, as the story of the Bhaalspawn has been concluded with ToB. BG:EE is inextricably related to the original game, and so hardcore fan criticism will be, to an extent, inevitable.
But if the majority agree that BG3 should be a totally different story with a totally different protagonist (perhaps even, in a totally new FR setting, like Tethyr, Cormyr or Damara), then why call it 'BG3'? Is it a project name? That would be understandable.
I would love nothing more than another Infinity Engine creation that retains the spirit of Baldur's Gate, but my argument is that there is no reason to call it "Baldur's Gate 3"; at the end of the day, this will only serve to alienate fans of the series. Feeding off the namesake of, albeit, the best RPG ever, will not, I hypothesise, be positive in the long-term.
I would love BG:EE and BG2:EE to spawn another Infinity Engine Forgotten Realms adventure - I don't think any news on the gaming scene would please me more, in fact! But please, PLEASE: Don't call it Baldur's Gate 3!!
28
Comments
I completely agree that using it as anything other than a project name is not the right way to go, though -- unless it either follows the Bhaalspawn story or if it is set in the Baldur's Gate city.
If it actually involves Baldur's Gate in a significant way, it would be legitimate to call the game BG3, in my opinion.
They can do it just the way Icewind Dale 2 had a different party, villians, story etc. than Icewind Dale 1, but still a lot of areas where the same.
In short, if I can't import my BG/BG2/ToB character into it, then to me it isn't BG3.
They can easily continue the story without having to retcon the ending (well, they'd have to ignore the dozen or so years of d&d storytelling since ToB came out, but that's beside the point). Have some unknown entity (Cyric, another bhaalspawn, whatever) steal/coalesce Bhaal's divine essence. After that charname either loses his divine power or hears about the event and then the game begins from there (the first 2-3 hours would be different based on how you ended ToB). If that's not to your liking then there are countless other explanations they could go with it that wouldn't appear contrived or break the story.
Baldur's Gate has always been about charname's journey. If they want to make another game that's similar in style then go for it, I'm sure it'll be great, but don't name it BG3.
Whole new adventure, original story, completely changed city, 6 party member tactical combat and you can reference the original games to help with marketing.
I'm pretty much against a whole denial of the first 2 games if it's just going to be called Baldurs Gate 3. Baldurs Gate : would be a lot better name as already suggested by @Thels.
If they also go through with supporting ALL the timelines, it would open up a giant opportunity for D&D game developers everywhere. They could make adventures before the Time of Troubles, or during, just after, pre spellplague, post spellplague, possibly even in the time of Netheril. I would fully endorse it.
I hope it happens, but we'll see. Infinity Engine 2.0 would be something to behold.
White Wolf came up against the same problem which is why you had in the scant space of 13 years 3 editions of their World of Darkness titles, first edition, second edition and revised. They also tried to increase the revenues by making each "setting" or supernatural creature a rulebook in and of itself. This does draw ire from fans sometimes, as people do end up resenting having to buy all the books again. Although when I run games myself I use 3.5 rules (and I remember the outcry of a between edition edition!), to be honest 2nd Edition Advanced is still a pretty well done system. I have to say the advantage of later editions is an effort to streamline and simplify so you don't need a degree in maths to make things work.
As far as settings go Wizards wants to promote new ones like Eberron, and will always do revamp campaign settings that have been very popular like The Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and such, but a lot of really really interesting settings have fallen by the wayside unfortunately.