The name Baldur's Gate was always geographical in nature, the game was never really about the city itself. Should the hypothetical new game take place in the same geographical area it might as well be called Baldur's Gate 3, the meaning of the name is not tied to the Bhallspawn story in any meaningful way.
IMO making BG3 (purely hypothetical at this point).... Is like putting lightning back n the bottle. I would be perfectly happy if several new ADDONS were made for BG2, in the vein of Durlags tower, or the like. As for another 100+ hour EPIC rpg made from scratch, using official D&D rule set? How realistic a hope is that?
That's a good question, but almost any story has some sort of loophole, or some sort of stretch that a good writer could take advantage of. Short of randomly bringing dead people back to life (I hate it when games do this, World of Warcraft is notorious for this) There is a way to show the Baldur's Gate Universe in a new light, or add some things here and there for the Bhaalspawn saga. Granted, I do believe that the trilogy pretty much ended lol.
Perhaps Charname wasn't actually the last of the Bhall spawn....and BG 3 intros another Bhall Spawn who for whatever reason was late to the party and shows up in Baldur's Gate a decade or so late?
I've already written most of a 1st Chapter for a possible BG 3 title, one that makes sense and fits with how ToB ended.......Probably write out the whole game, kind of OCD that way.
Pity I'm not professional or anything, be nice to write up a story line for a game, specially one of this caliber.
I see BG 3 being a hybrid of BG 1/2 and PS:T, lots of story and dialogue plus all the exploring and combat BG 1/2 had.
Specially would love the ability to beat the game with minimal combat, for those weaker character types or in out of game terms, those who love a good story or the opposite being a guy who doesn't do taking well and just beats his way through the game. I love options!
I don't personally see a problem of making a game that is called BG3, IF the background/story/all the important stuff is well thought and made. At the same time I would like the story to cross with the story of BG1 and BG2, happen on the same timeline, whatever like that to earn it's title "Baldur's Gate". Otherwise I wouldn't think it is that bad idea, which someone pointed in an earlier post, to start a spin off like "Tales from Baldur's Gate" or something like it. I'm pretty sure there is tons of fans, me included, who would want to see well made, BG styled RPGs. Today's RPGs are rather crappy compared to "good old days" RPGs...just my opinion though
This said, I do understand the people who are against the idea as well, because making sequels after a story is basically told until the very end may just flatten the whole thing.
Personally, I would greatly enjoy a prequel to the Bhaalspawn plot set during the Time of Troubles. I think that's rich material.
But otherwise, I agree, it should be a brand new adventure. Start the story in the city of Baldur's Gate to justify the name, and take it anywhere from there.
I think it's interesting how many people are saying that geographical contingency trumps that of the story. Of course, this it totally subjective and I don't ridicule this opinion at all. However: BG2 was not set in Baldur's Gate at all, and the link between all three games was the life of the protagonist, rather than the consistency of the setting. IWD and NWN, on the other hand, do not share the same story, but are linked by geography. People identify the BG series by the story (also, the story of the protagonist), while I believe IWD (perhaps only because it is more of a dungeon-crawler) is identified by the rich and unique setting - NWN brooks similar treatment. But if BG has always been acknowledged for mapping out the incredible and progressive journey of one character, surely having a BG3 that does not do this seems a little odd/incongruous? BG3, if it doesn't follow the story of the protagonist of the first two games, justifies itself by being set in Baldur's Gate, yet I'm sure we would all agree that BG2 would still be more congruent than it's alleged successor. Of course this is entirely my opinion, and not made to sound derogatory. But wouldn't people be just as happy with another Infinity Engine game that worked off a blank slate, than the attempted continuation of a game that has already made it's mark? Not to mention making a whole new game would open up the possibility of sequels to that story without clinging to a namesake that would gradually lose it's connection to that series of stories (or to that same story, if these new Infinity Engine games operated like BG did).
Thank you for reading, those of you who didn't fall asleep :P
Exactly what recklessheart said. A series can have different things tie the games together but those things should remain consistent throughout. The first two Fallouts had different protagonists but tied the games together by keeping them in the same region and having the Chosen One be from the tribe the Vault Dweller started. Diablo, as the name suggests, was about the antagonist and kept him as the constant throughout all three games. Legacy of Kain followed two different protagonists with each having his own numerical series (Blood Omen for Kain and Soul Reaver for Raziel, with Defiance combining the two). The Halo series was always about Master Chief and as such the games that were not about him were independent of the main franchise (Reach and ODST). Baldur's Gate has always been about the hero and his/her journey. If a third one is made it should continue that journey or be called something new (Baldur's Gate: blah blah blah). The alternative is having something like Fallout 3 which has pretty much zero in common with the first two games outside of time period.
It'd be like having Halo 4 or ME4 not be about Chief/Shepard (although judging Bioware's recent actions we might just see this).
I think one of the biggest issues with the BG series is everyone's investment into THEIR story. This might just be me, but I think I wouldn't want to play BG3 if it wasn't somehow linked in the same storyline, timeline or something or other that has to deal with the other BG elements.
I totally agree, @Xavioria. So why not make a whole new series, with a whole new story? Personally, I'd be more excited for that than for BG3. BG3 would be greeted with the same undertones of dread as BG:EE was - will they do it right? The pressure's off if they're creating a new series, however
I guess I'm one of the few people that would rather not see a BG3. For those of you who are bored, here's why:
1) Story: any kind of attempt to continue the Bhaalspawn storyline, whether it involves the same protagonist or not, would feel contrived at best and ridiculous at worst. Not to mention it would lessen the impact of the ending we got so far - whether you liked it or not, it didn't leave out a lot of loose ends, both in terms of story and gameplay. That's exactly why I didn't like certain stories from the Star Wars Expanded Universe ("let's bring Palpatine back! Luke goes to the dark side... and comes back!") - it's just diminishing an ending that was already satisfying.
2) Gameplay: there's no way to have consistency between BG3 and the former games. You can't use the same ruleset (it's already a miracle that BG2 wasn't forced to use 3rd Edition D&D, and even so they had to make a compromise and shoehorn certain classes in, as well as altering the general look of the game). Also, I'm pretty sure I've read posts by one or more devs stating that using the Infinity Engine in this day and age for a completely new game is just not feasible.
So you see, even if you keep it in the same continuity (by making a prequel or a brand new story that echoes the Bhaalspawn saga), at the end of the day it just wouldn't feel like Baldur's Gate.
I'm all for a new game in the spirit of the BG saga (isometric view, D&D rules, set on the Forgotten Realms), and I do understand that brand recognition plays a major role in how bankable a game can be, but I'm not sure using the BG name is absolutely essential when it comes to making a successful game.
I mean, have you guys seen how much money the kickstarter for Project Infinity made? And that was solely on the promise that it would be inspired by and aimed at the fans of the Infinity Engine. If Overhaul can use their experience to make something like that using the new D&D rules, not only I'd be on board, but I would rather see that than a Baldur's Gate that's that only in name.
I don't think making another game in the setting of Baldurs Gate today is that attractive. What I'd really love to see is a futuristic rpg done in the infinity engine mixing themes like virtual realities and transhumanism in an imaginative way and with a philosophical undertone similar to Planescape Torment. Playing an atmospheric well written game in that setting could be incredibly awesome.
You know what I find funny? The people on these forums wanting BG3 are also people who loved BG1 more than BG2.
If BG3 ever comes out, it'll flop unless the game decides to basically ignore the fans of BG1 and 2. I am not even kidding. Wail and gnash your teeth all you want, but it'll flop. The people who are fans of the original games will claim it's not samey enough and will hate it, so new people won't want to try it out.
I just KNOW this would happen. It happened with XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but with a less vocal audience simply because the XCOM series never received the same level of praise the Infinity Engine games did.
I would gladly play another infinity engine game - but if they hired the same people who produced these lousy rpg's we see nowadays, I suppose I might probably go back to playing BG, IWD and PS:T ..
There are two discussions going on with this thread. One is a theoretical story/plot driven discussion of what it means to be a sequel, where you can find the points of connections, and how the Baldur's Gate series specifically translates into this from a storytelling perspective.
The other is a much more "real life" issue. Baldur's Gate is a well known brand. It draws a vocal group of people and has some recognition in the broader community of gamers. The next two years are going to be spent trying to revitalize and broaden that brand by putting out polished versions of two classic games that will reignite the interest of old fans and bring in new ones. That is called priming the pump. At that point, if all goes according to plan, there should be a built in audience ready for a new D&D game and it will be released under this recognizable brand.
There is a reason hollywood loves sequels. They sell like crazy because people are already invested in the story and characters so the downside risk for a new sequel is so much less than a fresh startup.
So while we can all discuss what makes sense for story-telling and the nature of true sequels for the BG1, BG2, TOB series, the reality is that there is a marketing strategy already in place to build the Baldur's Gate brand and use that brand to promote a new product (BG3). There is no continuity issue, setting problem, etc. that is going to throw that train off the tracks. The only question will be whether the BG brand is worth capitalizing on or not; if it is, no matter what direction the developers and writers choose to take it will be a Baldur's Gate game.
Well, @AHF, I absolutely 100% agree with your hypothesis and reasoning, but over the years because people have developed such a sense of sentimentality for BG, it seems a pity and all-in-all, a bad idea to warp or try to 'update' people's perceptions of such an RPG masterpiece for the sake of quick cash.
And, in response to @Figrut, I would redirect you please to the response I raised to general attitude on the thread half-way down pg2 regarding what makes BG a series - protagonist or geography.
Thanks for showing renewed interest in the thread guys!
I see what the point of @recklessheart mention , but if we don't call it Baldur's gate 3 , what's it different with enternity project ? The overhaul games can start kickstarter action now , call what ? may Infinity project ?
If they call it Baldur's Gate 3 , it means they have resposibility to meet the high level request from BG series's fan in whole the world.
I've posted this in another thread I think, but the Bhaalspawn story cannot be continued. WotC has already incorporated it into their official Forgotten Realms canon and they aren't going to let it be revisited. They significantly changed the Forgotten Realms for 4th Edition, for the worse in my opinion. They even released a book of history for the Realms to set it up for the transition to 4E. The Bhaalspawn saga is mentioned very specifically. What incentive would they have to open continuity conflicts. Hardcore fans hate conitinuity problems
The beauty of Project Eternity is that they get to start clean with all the stuff we loved about the Infinity Engine games without any of the IP baggage that is associated with the D&D license. I'd love to revisit the BG story, but it ain't gonna happen.
" Baldurs gate " is VERY strong name... In this days is it mostly name what we buing, not games.
Better name = More attention More attention = More selling More selling = More money
Also there is many ways how can child of Bhaal sage still continue:
1) His/Her own child. 2) Bhaal has been reborn and he acquire most of his former power ! 3) Space hamsters invasion to Faerun, we are all doomed !
Nr. 3, please. Faerun seems doomed, as long as we don't find out about a certain, very specific hamster breed. While still giant space hamsters, they are miniature like their Earthly cousins. Decendents of Boo, they are our only hope! Boospawns are all over Faerun actually, everywhere where Minsc went. So hope is not lost, as long as a hero manages to find one of Boospawns and make him remember his heritage and help him unlock his powers. THEN this Boospawn will fight the invasion back.
For me, Baldur's Gate saga is over. The story of bhaalspawn has ended, there is nothing to add. In my opinion, there is no need to make a sequel, because there is nothing to add to the story (unless they would do some stupid explanation). I have nothing against a game, happening in the same area, with similar look as the original BG, but it shouldn't be called Baldur's Gate. Don't make it another Fallout 3. Don't butcher another wonderful franchise, as Bethesda did with Fallout.
I don't want them to butcher the storyline by inartfully tacking something on or to screw job the storyline with a prequel (thank you George Lucas) but I have zero problem with them trading on the Baldur's Gate name to introduce a new game. I am also open to them artfully doing a prequel, etc. that fits within the continuity (there is plenty of material there - it can even do something like lead up to you beating the big bad guys to allow non-party member Gorion to save that one plucky Bhaalspawn as long as it is done right).
Comments
Pity I'm not professional or anything, be nice to write up a story line for a game, specially one of this caliber.
I see BG 3 being a hybrid of BG 1/2 and PS:T, lots of story and dialogue plus all the exploring and combat BG 1/2 had.
Specially would love the ability to beat the game with minimal combat, for those weaker character types or in out of game terms, those who love a good story or the opposite being a guy who doesn't do taking well and just beats his way through the game. I love options!
This said, I do understand the people who are against the idea as well, because making sequels after a story is basically told until the very end may just flatten the whole thing.
But otherwise, I agree, it should be a brand new adventure. Start the story in the city of Baldur's Gate to justify the name, and take it anywhere from there.
BG2 was not set in Baldur's Gate at all, and the link between all three games was the life of the protagonist, rather than the consistency of the setting. IWD and NWN, on the other hand, do not share the same story, but are linked by geography. People identify the BG series by the story (also, the story of the protagonist), while I believe IWD (perhaps only because it is more of a dungeon-crawler) is identified by the rich and unique setting - NWN brooks similar treatment.
But if BG has always been acknowledged for mapping out the incredible and progressive journey of one character, surely having a BG3 that does not do this seems a little odd/incongruous?
BG3, if it doesn't follow the story of the protagonist of the first two games, justifies itself by being set in Baldur's Gate, yet I'm sure we would all agree that BG2 would still be more congruent than it's alleged successor.
Of course this is entirely my opinion, and not made to sound derogatory. But wouldn't people be just as happy with another Infinity Engine game that worked off a blank slate, than the attempted continuation of a game that has already made it's mark? Not to mention making a whole new game would open up the possibility of sequels to that story without clinging to a namesake that would gradually lose it's connection to that series of stories (or to that same story, if these new Infinity Engine games operated like BG did).
Thank you for reading, those of you who didn't fall asleep :P
It'd be like having Halo 4 or ME4 not be about Chief/Shepard (although judging Bioware's recent actions we might just see this).
The pressure's off if they're creating a new series, however
I DESERVE CREDIT FOR THAT GAME!
... No, no. I'm joking, of course. (I'll wait to see how good it is before I file a lawsuit)
Anyway.. Just thought I'd share my thoughts with my fellow Baldur's Gate-loving pals! xD
1) Story: any kind of attempt to continue the Bhaalspawn storyline, whether it involves the same protagonist or not, would feel contrived at best and ridiculous at worst. Not to mention it would lessen the impact of the ending we got so far - whether you liked it or not, it didn't leave out a lot of loose ends, both in terms of story and gameplay. That's exactly why I didn't like certain stories from the Star Wars Expanded Universe ("let's bring Palpatine back! Luke goes to the dark side... and comes back!") - it's just diminishing an ending that was already satisfying.
2) Gameplay: there's no way to have consistency between BG3 and the former games. You can't use the same ruleset (it's already a miracle that BG2 wasn't forced to use 3rd Edition D&D, and even so they had to make a compromise and shoehorn certain classes in, as well as altering the general look of the game). Also, I'm pretty sure I've read posts by one or more devs stating that using the Infinity Engine in this day and age for a completely new game is just not feasible.
So you see, even if you keep it in the same continuity (by making a prequel or a brand new story that echoes the Bhaalspawn saga), at the end of the day it just wouldn't feel like Baldur's Gate.
I'm all for a new game in the spirit of the BG saga (isometric view, D&D rules, set on the Forgotten Realms), and I do understand that brand recognition plays a major role in how bankable a game can be, but I'm not sure using the BG name is absolutely essential when it comes to making a successful game.
I mean, have you guys seen how much money the kickstarter for Project Infinity made? And that was solely on the promise that it would be inspired by and aimed at the fans of the Infinity Engine. If Overhaul can use their experience to make something like that using the new D&D rules, not only I'd be on board, but I would rather see that than a Baldur's Gate that's that only in name.
If BG3 ever comes out, it'll flop unless the game decides to basically ignore the fans of BG1 and 2. I am not even kidding. Wail and gnash your teeth all you want, but it'll flop. The people who are fans of the original games will claim it's not samey enough and will hate it, so new people won't want to try it out.
I just KNOW this would happen. It happened with XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but with a less vocal audience simply because the XCOM series never received the same level of praise the Infinity Engine games did.
The other is a much more "real life" issue. Baldur's Gate is a well known brand. It draws a vocal group of people and has some recognition in the broader community of gamers. The next two years are going to be spent trying to revitalize and broaden that brand by putting out polished versions of two classic games that will reignite the interest of old fans and bring in new ones. That is called priming the pump. At that point, if all goes according to plan, there should be a built in audience ready for a new D&D game and it will be released under this recognizable brand.
There is a reason hollywood loves sequels. They sell like crazy because people are already invested in the story and characters so the downside risk for a new sequel is so much less than a fresh startup.
So while we can all discuss what makes sense for story-telling and the nature of true sequels for the BG1, BG2, TOB series, the reality is that there is a marketing strategy already in place to build the Baldur's Gate brand and use that brand to promote a new product (BG3). There is no continuity issue, setting problem, etc. that is going to throw that train off the tracks. The only question will be whether the BG brand is worth capitalizing on or not; if it is, no matter what direction the developers and writers choose to take it will be a Baldur's Gate game.
And, in response to @Figrut, I would redirect you please to the response I raised to general attitude on the thread half-way down pg2 regarding what makes BG a series - protagonist or geography.
Thanks for showing renewed interest in the thread guys!
If they call it Baldur's Gate 3 , it means they have resposibility to meet the high level request from BG series's fan in whole the world.
In this days is it mostly name what we buing, not games.
Better name = More attention
More attention = More selling
More selling = More money
Also there is many ways how can child of Bhaal sage still continue:
1) His/Her own child.
2) Bhaal has been reborn and he acquire most of his former power !
3) Space hamsters invasion to Faerun, we are all doomed !
The beauty of Project Eternity is that they get to start clean with all the stuff we loved about the Infinity Engine games without any of the IP baggage that is associated with the D&D license. I'd love to revisit the BG story, but it ain't gonna happen.
In my opinion, there is no need to make a sequel, because there is nothing to add to the story (unless they would do some stupid explanation).
I have nothing against a game, happening in the same area, with similar look as the original BG, but it shouldn't be called Baldur's Gate.
Don't make it another Fallout 3. Don't butcher another wonderful franchise, as Bethesda did with Fallout.