Baldur's Gate can be named that, imo, if they tie elements from the first 2 in the game.
For example, Vic and Aerie can be recurring characters regardless if 20 years, to a 100 years have passed since they are both elves.
They can also give winks and nods to hardcore fans of the series such as meeting a rogue by the name of Brus or visiting trademeet and seeing the statues by the fountain still standing there.
Regardless of what they do, not everyone is going to be happy and people will still say "how can you call this BG3 if this, this and this isn't part of it."
What if... they made BG3 into a sort of Epilogue? This is how things turned out as a result of what happened in the first two games. Shows how thing have come along, what kind of legacy was created. New characters in a new world forged by the old.
@CaptRory: we already got an Epilogue in the end of ToB, that tells us about what happened to the characters that accompanied CHARNAME. The original story has been told, there is nothing left really. You can't tell a very interesting story if everything is known in advance, one needs revelations and surprises. In the first game you had so many revelations, like Sarevok is your brother, you are a child of Bhaal himself.
What did the second game have? Irenicus is an exiled elf, elves can be very evil and unwise when punishing offences against their gods. Basically the main revelations for CHARNAME have been ommited in order to create some filler and to level him/her up, so that CHARNAME is prepared for the ultimate Bhaalspawn battle in ToB
What did the third game have? The revelation of the real intentions of Bhaal: all of the children were supposed to slaughter each other in a fight for the empty throne, thus bringing the essence back to the source and resurrecting Bhaal. Not to mention Amellyssan. There was also this canon-breaking revelation about the mother of CHARNAME, which is nice as long as you don't notice the inconsistency.
What would the third game have? All the questions are answered by now, all the goals are achieved. CHARNAME is either an evil deity, a good deity or a new person of his free will. If you are going to play for CHARNAME again, there is no place to progress. He/she is too powerful. What would you throw at him, multiple dragons, wizard armies, a returned Demogorgon who brought half-hell with him? No new enemies are available after you put a demon prince and a half-goddess to rest.
Some things should be put to rest once they are over. A new game, with a new story and new characters, new questions etc. would be much more than a fan-service in the form of BG3.
If anyone wants a new DnD based isometric rpg it will HAVE to be called Baldur's Gate just to get enough backing to be funded (whether by a publisher or crowdfunded).
People can talk all they want about the sanctity of the BG series and the Bhaalspawn saga or whatever but there just isn't enough demand that would cause publishers to be looking for a company to make such a game and there aren't enough IE fans to make a success of a KS on their own, they would need to pull in players who liked the game but never really loved it long time. (By fan I mean players who have continued to play the game from release until now)
The setting has already been used to sell Dark Alliance console games anyway so making a new BG game should not bother anyone.
Call it Baldur's Gate: X of the X or whatever, it would essentially be BG3 except the implied continuation of the bhaalspawn saga is left behind by avoiding the 3 in the title.
I would rejoice tomorrow if someone announced they were making a dnd isometric rpg in a similar vein to the BG series. Just like I was ecstatic when Obsidian launched Project Eternity. They don't need to use the IE engine either, it is outdated and would probably hold the developer back more than help them at this stage.
If you are going to play for CHARNAME again, there is no place to progress. He/she is too powerful. What would you throw at him, multiple dragons, wizard armies, a returned Demogorgon who brought half-hell with him? No new enemies are available after you put a demon prince and a half-goddess to rest.
It was already terrible in TOB - EVERY mercenary had an equipment, that you could only dream of in BG1. You were too powerful, so the enemies were just out of place.
If you are going to play for CHARNAME again, there is no place to progress. He/she is too powerful. What would you throw at him, multiple dragons, wizard armies, a returned Demogorgon who brought half-hell with him? No new enemies are available after you put a demon prince and a half-goddess to rest.
It was already terrible in TOB - EVERY mercenary had an equipment, that you could only dream of in BG1. You were too powerful, so the enemies were just out of place.
It was just silly. The Saradush inkeeper is just sitting on a pile of +3 weapons. How did he get such a large supply? Why does he still bother to be an inkeep when selling a small number of those swords would allow him to live like a king? Why haven't the garrison requisitioned his weapons for the war effort? You can ask the same types of questions about a lot of things in ToB. The worst thing is that this isn't even necessary, it's not like the player needs to buy weapons at this point. Epic-level campaigns are very hard to do believably and ToB didn't do it well at all. More of that in Baldur's Gate 3 would not be welcome.
If BG3 were to be made (not gonna get into the "this is why it should/shouldn't be made bullocks) I would love it to take place in Waterdeep. 10x the size of Baldur's Gate, loads of new characters (Blackstaff, Arilyn Moonblade, Danillo Thann etc) and quests, that would be amazing. Who the protagonist would be, and what it has to do with the original storyline I'd leave to the makers of said game :P
@recklessheart the idea of making a new game related to BG series and calling it a BALDUR'S GATE 3 wouldn't surprise me. Furthemore I wouldn't be against it. After all there already was a BG3 without the Gorion's Ward nor the known characters (Minsc, Jaheria, Viconia, etc.) in production by Black Isle:
I don't understand people having a problem with the name "Baldur's Gate 3". The game could be called that and still be about literally anything in the Realms. Fans would understand it was just tagging it in to the tradition of the original games and newcomers would more frequently discover the roots of the new game.
It's not necessary, but it would benefit the game. I don't buy that many games but I still look up the ones from my childhood. If I caught a whiff of a "new Baldur's Gate," or just saw "Baldur's Gate" in a Game store I'd immediately pick it up.
Granted, a "Forgotten Realms," prefix would serve the same purpose and make more sense.
If you are going to play for CHARNAME again, there is no place to progress. He/she is too powerful. What would you throw at him, multiple dragons, wizard armies, a returned Demogorgon who brought half-hell with him? No new enemies are available after you put a demon prince and a half-goddess to rest.
It was already terrible in TOB - EVERY mercenary had an equipment, that you could only dream of in BG1. You were too powerful, so the enemies were just out of place.
It was just silly. The Saradush inkeeper is just sitting on a pile of +3 weapons. How did he get such a large supply? Why does he still bother to be an inkeep when selling a small number of those swords would allow him to live like a king? Why haven't the garrison requisitioned his weapons for the war effort? You can ask the same types of questions about a lot of things in ToB. The worst thing is that this isn't even necessary, it's not like the player needs to buy weapons at this point. Epic-level campaigns are very hard to do believably and ToB didn't do it well at all. More of that in Baldur's Gate 3 would not be welcome.
I agree that aspects like that were silly, but that doesn't mean that a high/epic level of 2E D&D adventuring cannot be well designed. The issue in that particular case was likely based on ToB being playable from scratch without having to go through BG2 already, which already seemed like a limiting decision. Either way, I don't really agree with the view that D&D should only be played at low and mid levels and then restarted with fresh characters. Especially in a single-player computerized setting where (unlike many P&P campaigns) the players get a fair shot at investing the time needed to take characters to very high levels.
I don't understand people having a problem with the name "Baldur's Gate 3". The game could be called that and still be about literally anything in the Realms. Fans would understand it was just tagging it in to the tradition of the original games and newcomers would more frequently discover the roots of the new game.
It's not necessary, but it would benefit the game. I don't buy that many games but I still look up the ones from my childhood. If I caught a whiff of a "new Baldur's Gate," or just saw "Baldur's Gate" in a Game store I'd immediately pick it up.
Granted, a "Forgotten Realms," prefix would serve the same purpose and make more sense.
If the game is called BG3 and is about something unrelated, than it just looks stupid, like they put the name on it in order to connect to the popularity and secure more customers. All such naming strategy does for me is creating confusion. I'm all for a new RPG within the Forgotten Realms, and why not, maybe even in the area around BG or Athkatla, but it should be a new original game, not a lame attempt at continuing a great story which is done and over with.
I'm missing why this has to be a Bhaalspawn quest/story line. It could, I suppose, but it could equally be another RPG in the area. I imagine, that after CHARNAME goes off and does whatever, there is a huge vacuum of evil (because most of it was vanquished) in the area and new evil overlords have moved in. Anyway, I'll wait and see what becomes of it.
I don't understand people having a problem with the name "Baldur's Gate 3". The game could be called that and still be about literally anything in the Realms. Fans would understand it was just tagging it in to the tradition of the original games and newcomers would more frequently discover the roots of the new game.
It's not necessary, but it would benefit the game. I don't buy that many games but I still look up the ones from my childhood. If I caught a whiff of a "new Baldur's Gate," or just saw "Baldur's Gate" in a Game store I'd immediately pick it up.
Granted, a "Forgotten Realms," prefix would serve the same purpose and make more sense.
If the game is called BG3 and is about something unrelated, than it just looks stupid, like they put the name on it in order to connect to the popularity and secure more customers. All such naming strategy does for me is creating confusion. I'm all for a new RPG within the Forgotten Realms, and why not, maybe even in the area around BG or Athkatla, but it should be a new original game, not a lame attempt at continuing a great story which is done and over with.
Clearly you feel strongly about this but that doesn't mean that using a name "to connect to the popularity and secure more customers" is a "stupid" idea. I completely agree that a future game shouldn't attempt to continue the Bhaalspawn saga, which has been done with.
Baldur's Gate is the name of the city, not the character. I really don't see why everyone is so fixated on linking the title to the character. I would understand if the game was called "Bhaalspawn" and the newest chapter didn't involve the original plot. I think moving the second game to a new location was stranger than building a third game with new plot concepts in the original setting, Baldur's Gate. I don't care what they need to do to get a sequel made. Using that name to generate funding is no big deal. Just get it made with the production values we've come to expect and I'll be happy.
Balgur's Gate 3 for me means isometric view, party of 6 (or so), awesome selection of skills, classes, spells, characters, awesome story, DnD setting, pretty backgrounds and lots of murder.
So there's every reason to make a Baldur's Gate 3 and absolutely no reason why it has to be centered around CHARNAME. (Though it would be awesome to have a cameo by someone from BG1/Bg2)
I feel pretty much the opposite from @ekster's opinion - the BG concept for me means the Bhaalspawn saga with a main character imported in every new game, and that's what I'd want to see in any game named BG3. So I agree with @cyberhawk that if the game isn't a direct continuation, it should be called something else.
Ideally, a modern BG3 would not only let you import your character file, but track a lot of minor outcomes from all previous games and adapt to them, akin to the Mass Effect design philosophy.
Balgur's Gate 3 for me means isometric view, party of 6 (or so), awesome selection of skills, classes, spells, characters, awesome story, DnD setting, pretty backgrounds and lots of murder.
So there's every reason to make a Baldur's Gate 3 and absolutely no reason why it has to be centered around CHARNAME. (Though it would be awesome to have a cameo by someone from BG1/Bg2)
So why call the game Baldurs Gate 3 then? That's my point, if you call it BG3 it should be a continuation of the story, but a continuation isn't possible, so -> don't make a BG3, make a new game in possibly the same setting.
BG set a precedent where you imported your character to the sequels though, much like Mass Effect. If a new ME game came out that wasn't about Shepard's story, imo it shouldn't be named ME4, but Mass Effect: "subtitle" or something else that implied same universe but not a direct continuation. The Halo series handles it the same way, with only the games that feature their main character having the numeric titles.
They could certainly choose not to use the "3" moniker but I view that as more about semantics than fundamental content. The reality is that if things go to plan they will absolutely use the BG name. If they do it like @ekster says:
Because it continues the game's style, the game's mechanics, the game's looks and feels and the game's world.
Icewind Dale didn't continue the story but we all knew what to expect out of Icewind Dale 2.
Neverwinter Nights didn't continue the story, but we all knew what to expect out of Neverwinter Nights 2.
And Final Fantasy never continued the same story. But anyone can identify what Final Fantasy 10,12,15, or 12,457,157 is like.
There is no reason they can't. If we end up a decade from now playing BG6, all fans will remember is that the first two games in the saga were about the Bhaalspawn story while the rest of the games focused on....whatever storylines plague the Baldur's Gate setting in the past, future, etc.
It would be a disaster in my book if they spent a few years building up the BG brand and then they drop it...because if they do, it almost surely won't be to put something new in its place with a similar style, mechanic, D&D setting, etc. It will be because they think the genre isn't worth developing.
I guess I would be ok with it being named Baldur's Gate: Adventures (or whatever). It would identify it as being a similar kind of game, but also make it clear that it wasn't directly connected.
The only change in mechanics I would expect is that the next Baldur's Gate game will have to use current D&D rules, so I´m hoping it will be out with D&D Next rules, not 4th edition.
Neverwinter is an excellent example of branding a game. Neverwinter Nights 2 had no direct relation with the first game, although I remember someone mentions a hero of Neverwinter at some point in the game. Some expansions to Neverwinter Nights 2 didn't even relate to its own storyline, introducing a new story and characters.
I guess I would be ok with it being named Baldur's Gate: Adventures (or whatever). It would identify it as being a similar kind of game, but also make it clear that it wasn't directly connected.
Personally, that would also be my preference but it is a minor detail compared to whether they actually make the game and whether they do a great job with it and how the D&DNext translates, etc.
What makes Baldur's Gate the succesful game it is, is being a quality rpg with isometric gameplay, tactical combat using 2nd D&D rules and a well-written story with lots of attention to details (even of little side-things like npc's you meet that don't have any relation to the story yet still have a character and a life ot their own and good quotes on tombstones) and being set in the Forgotten Realms.
If it includes those things, the next game can be of a quality that has more appeal to hardcore RPG-fans than Dragon Age and be a true successor. And just for it to be succesful and attract enough funding and people who buy the game, it should be of the same quality and have 'Baldur's Gate' as part of the name.
*just remember even Shadows of Amn didn't take place in Baldur's Gate or even the Swordcoast and no-one complained about that.
just remember even Shadows of Amn didn't take place in Baldur's Gate or even the Swordcoast and no-one complained about that.
But it continued the story that began in BG1. You are the same character, whoever you made him/her to be. The point is that it ain't possible to have a direct sequel, not without some serious retconning. And who'd want that?
I'll have to disagree with everyone who said that the Baldur's Gate name is essential to have a successful isometric-view party-based D&D adaptation. Again, have you guys seen the fundraiser for Project Eternity? It won't use the D&D license - it merely promised to be heavily inspired by the IE games, but that didn't stop people from practically throwing money at Obsidian.
And hey, that's good for Overhaul. If Project Eternity turns out to be a hit (it most likely will), that opens up the path for their own BG-like game, with all the freedom and resources and marketing they're not getting from Wizards/Atari right now. Not unlike what happened in 1999, when the original BG made the cRPG genre bankable again.
Let's just hope it's not BG3. Seriously, let's all move on - I'm personally excited and grateful that the EEs are happening, but I also believe that's where the BG revival should end.
I'll have to disagree with everyone who said that the Baldur's Gate name is essential to have a successful isometric-view party-based D&D adaptation. Again, have you guys seen the fundraiser for Project Eternity? It won't use the D&D license - it merely promised to be heavily inspired by the IE games, but that didn't stop people from practically throwing money at Obsidian.
I think you misread some earlier posts. No one said that.
What I said earlier is that they are specifically investing in the BG franchise for the next two years for the express purpose of using it to brand a new D&D adaptation game. The only way they aren't going to do that is if the BG name isn't worth using -- which would be an indication that they either think the genre isn't worth investing in or that they have been very disappointed with the response on the BGEEs. Both of those scenarios likely mean no new isometric-view party-based D&D adapation for this particular company and this particular project. It doesn't mean that another company couldn't build a game from scratch -- it merely means that Overhaul has a marketing advantage with the BG franchise that they aren't going to throw away if they ultimately go forward with a new game.
The home run for them isn't getting sales of the BG:EE games; the home run is using those to prime the pump and launch a new BG title to a more committed and much broader audience.
Comments
For example, Vic and Aerie can be recurring characters regardless if 20 years, to a 100 years have passed since they are both elves.
They can also give winks and nods to hardcore fans of the series such as meeting a rogue by the name of Brus or visiting trademeet and seeing the statues by the fountain still standing there.
Regardless of what they do, not everyone is going to be happy and people will still say "how can you call this BG3 if this, this and this isn't part of it."
What did the second game have? Irenicus is an exiled elf, elves can be very evil and unwise when punishing offences against their gods. Basically the main revelations for CHARNAME have been ommited in order to create some filler and to level him/her up, so that CHARNAME is prepared for the ultimate Bhaalspawn battle in ToB
What did the third game have? The revelation of the real intentions of Bhaal: all of the children were supposed to slaughter each other in a fight for the empty throne, thus bringing the essence back to the source and resurrecting Bhaal. Not to mention Amellyssan. There was also this canon-breaking revelation about the mother of CHARNAME, which is nice as long as you don't notice the inconsistency.
What would the third game have? All the questions are answered by now, all the goals are achieved. CHARNAME is either an evil deity, a good deity or a new person of his free will. If you are going to play for CHARNAME again, there is no place to progress. He/she is too powerful. What would you throw at him, multiple dragons, wizard armies, a returned Demogorgon who brought half-hell with him? No new enemies are available after you put a demon prince and a half-goddess to rest.
Some things should be put to rest once they are over. A new game, with a new story and new characters, new questions etc. would be much more than a fan-service in the form of BG3.
Just retcon the ending, I personally wasn't keen on it anyway.
Some people will complain, of course but if the game is good all will be forgotten
People can talk all they want about the sanctity of the BG series and the Bhaalspawn saga or whatever but there just isn't enough demand that would cause publishers to be looking for a company to make such a game and there aren't enough IE fans to make a success of a KS on their own, they would need to pull in players who liked the game but never really loved it long time. (By fan I mean players who have continued to play the game from release until now)
The setting has already been used to sell Dark Alliance console games anyway so making a new BG game should not bother anyone.
Call it Baldur's Gate: X of the X or whatever, it would essentially be BG3 except the implied continuation of the bhaalspawn saga is left behind by avoiding the 3 in the title.
I would rejoice tomorrow if someone announced they were making a dnd isometric rpg in a similar vein to the BG series. Just like I was ecstatic when Obsidian launched Project Eternity. They don't need to use the IE engine either, it is outdated and would probably hold the developer back more than help them at this stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound
Fans would understand it was just tagging it in to the tradition of the original games and newcomers would more frequently discover the roots of the new game.
It's not necessary, but it would benefit the game. I don't buy that many games but I still look up the ones from my childhood. If I caught a whiff of a "new Baldur's Gate," or just saw "Baldur's Gate" in a Game store I'd immediately pick it up.
Granted, a "Forgotten Realms," prefix would serve the same purpose and make more sense.
Either way, I don't really agree with the view that D&D should only be played at low and mid levels and then restarted with fresh characters. Especially in a single-player computerized setting where (unlike many P&P campaigns) the players get a fair shot at investing the time needed to take characters to very high levels.
I completely agree that a future game shouldn't attempt to continue the Bhaalspawn saga, which has been done with.
So there's every reason to make a Baldur's Gate 3 and absolutely no reason why it has to be centered around CHARNAME. (Though it would be awesome to have a cameo by someone from BG1/Bg2)
Ideally, a modern BG3 would not only let you import your character file, but track a lot of minor outcomes from all previous games and adapt to them, akin to the Mass Effect design philosophy.
Icewind Dale didn't continue the story but we all knew what to expect out of Icewind Dale 2.
Neverwinter Nights didn't continue the story, but we all knew what to expect out of Neverwinter Nights 2.
And Final Fantasy never continued the same story. But anyone can identify what Final Fantasy 10,12,15, or 12,457,157 is like.
It would be a disaster in my book if they spent a few years building up the BG brand and then they drop it...because if they do, it almost surely won't be to put something new in its place with a similar style, mechanic, D&D setting, etc. It will be because they think the genre isn't worth developing.
Neverwinter is an excellent example of branding a game. Neverwinter Nights 2 had no direct relation with the first game, although I remember someone mentions a hero of Neverwinter at some point in the game. Some expansions to Neverwinter Nights 2 didn't even relate to its own storyline, introducing a new story and characters.
But if it continues the world (unlike Baldur's Gate Alliance), and you're playing in the aftermath of CHARNAME, it's still connected, I find.
If it includes those things, the next game can be of a quality that has more appeal to hardcore RPG-fans than Dragon Age and be a true successor. And just for it to be succesful and attract enough funding and people who buy the game, it should be of the same quality and have 'Baldur's Gate' as part of the name.
*just remember even Shadows of Amn didn't take place in Baldur's Gate or even the Swordcoast and no-one complained about that.
I'll have to disagree with everyone who said that the Baldur's Gate name is essential to have a successful isometric-view party-based D&D adaptation. Again, have you guys seen the fundraiser for Project Eternity? It won't use the D&D license - it merely promised to be heavily inspired by the IE games, but that didn't stop people from practically throwing money at Obsidian.
And hey, that's good for Overhaul. If Project Eternity turns out to be a hit (it most likely will), that opens up the path for their own BG-like game, with all the freedom and resources and marketing they're not getting from Wizards/Atari right now. Not unlike what happened in 1999, when the original BG made the cRPG genre bankable again.
Let's just hope it's not BG3. Seriously, let's all move on - I'm personally excited and grateful that the EEs are happening, but I also believe that's where the BG revival should end.
What I said earlier is that they are specifically investing in the BG franchise for the next two years for the express purpose of using it to brand a new D&D adaptation game. The only way they aren't going to do that is if the BG name isn't worth using -- which would be an indication that they either think the genre isn't worth investing in or that they have been very disappointed with the response on the BGEEs. Both of those scenarios likely mean no new isometric-view party-based D&D adapation for this particular company and this particular project. It doesn't mean that another company couldn't build a game from scratch -- it merely means that Overhaul has a marketing advantage with the BG franchise that they aren't going to throw away if they ultimately go forward with a new game.
The home run for them isn't getting sales of the BG:EE games; the home run is using those to prime the pump and launch a new BG title to a more committed and much broader audience.