I actually think the name should be kept. Lots of people know and love the Baldur's Gate games, and their ears would perk up a lot more to that name than a new IP's name. Even if it has nothing to do with BG, they should still keep it.
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.
As much as I'd rather not see a BG3, I suppose it's probably inevitable - unless the EEs are a flop, which I hope they're not. Guess I can only hope that whatever they do with the story will not feel too contrived.
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.
It's also a deeply personal tale about a character in whose shoes you get to travel for 30 D&D levels or more and spend untold hours of gameplay with. In my mind, once you have established that kind of connection you can't take it away and still have a game that feels the same.
@ekster@Treyolen, this issue I have already tried to bring a conclusion to earlier in the forums.
The relation between IWD1 & 2 is Icewind Dale itself. The relation between NWN1 and NWN2 is the city of Neverwinter. The relation between BG1 & BG2 is the protagonist and the story of the protagonist.
Therefore, if we are to connect the games in this way, the former are both connected by geography, while the latter is a series of story, not location. If a 3rd game is added to the series that attempts to familiarise itself based on location, when the attachment to the game is bred out of following the story of 'CHARNAME', then it is alienating and clearly, as has been said before, a marketing strategy to just sell more copies.
I just happen to have a problem with abusing the name of such a legendary series for the sake of making money.
@recklessheart I respect your opinion, but disagree. There is already a pair of Baldur's Gate games that have nothing to do with the CHARNAME you reference. They use the name Baldur's Gate because the games are set in the area of Baldur's Gate. The relation was geographical.
If the argument is really based on whether or not the number 3 should appear in the title I think we've become a little obsessive. If using the Baldur's Gate name helps get the game made, who cares what number or subtitle is used? It wouldn't bother me if they skip a number and call it Baldur's Gate 4. Final Fantasy did that in the United States and it doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
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.
As much as I'd rather not see a BG3, I suppose it's probably inevitable - unless the EEs are a flop, which I hope they're not. Guess I can only hope that whatever they do with the story will not feel too contrived.
Fair enough with @Rabain's comment. The others I think were along the same lines of BG = advantage in marketing and sales. Given the investment they are making in the BG brand, I would be shocked to see them proceed with the D&D isometric game and dump the Baldur's Gate moniker.
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.
It's also a deeply personal tale about a character in whose shoes you get to travel for 30 D&D levels or more and spend untold hours of gameplay with. In my mind, once you have established that kind of connection you can't take it away and still have a game that feels the same.
True, but the attachment to the character and part of the charm of the game also comes from building that character up from level 1, when he or she can be killed by a single wolfbite or kobold arrow. And once my character reaches godhood (once I'm there, I never played TOB yet), I don't feel like continuing on an über-power path, I want to create a new character in a new story and make a tiny apparently nobody-character part of another epic.
For me, BG is well-rounded (I think, judging from what people say who did finish TOB) and it's the quality that should be continued into the game, not the story itself per sé. I see BG more like a strong brand-name that can help the next game being succesful, rather that the need for the story to continue. But mileage may vary, like people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean say (or maybe the Brits as well?).
I just happen to have a problem with abusing the name of such a legendary series for the sake of making money.
I will have a problem with it if the new game uses the phrase BG in the title, but won't be of the same quality. So for me, it's a judgement I will make if and after the game is made and released.
(We're thinking awfully far ahead in the future here, right now it's anticipation for the end of this month, and then there's BG2EE to be created first.
Therefore, if we are to connect the games in this way, the former are both connected by geography, while the latter is a series of story, not location. If a 3rd game is added to the series that attempts to familiarise itself based on location, when the attachment to the game is bred out of following the story of 'CHARNAME', then it is alienating and clearly, as has been said before, a marketing strategy to just sell more copies.
I just happen to have a problem with abusing the name of such a legendary series for the sake of making money.
There are the console Dark Alliance BG games that have nothing to do with the bhaalspawn that cash in totally on the franchise name AND also by being console they try to draw in another type of player. The first game was succesful enough to allow a second game to be developed.
It is not abuse of the name to use it as leverage to actually get funding to make the game in the first place.
I would call using the BG name to sell console games a bigger abuse than someone trying to make a new isometric rpg similar to the BG games ( I won't say IE game because I'd rather they didn't use the Infinity Engine and moved on). Hell I'd even take a BG game done in the Dragon Age engine, having seen some of the work done to recreate BG2 using that.
TBH as much as I would love a BG3, I don't want it to happen because they will mess it up.
'We wanted to make a long awaited sequel to the Baldurs Gate series ... But we also wanted to make it modern to appeal to todays gamers, along with a few elements from the original series to keep the appeal for long term fans. Now the game is a full 3D hack and slash, and when you push a button, something awesome hasta happen!'.
I think I agree with the OP. BGII had a definite ending in Throne of Bhaal so I don't necessarily need BG3. I'm an evangelist insomuchas I've always argued the case for a game arc linking Baldur's Gate with Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance but, I have my own very definite ideas about how this could be done (and it could be done and could be canonical) but because I have my own very definite ideas I don't want anyone else to do it and screw with my ideas, so no I don't really hanker after BGIII
@Rabain, well yes, I've not forgotten about BG:DA, and I do see where you are making your point. But with respect, I disagreed with BG:DA ripping off the namesake of a game in a totally different genre for the sake of sales, so it doesn't really move my position on the matter much! :P
( I always feel so unfriendly when I post on these forums..! )
Personally I hope to have the chance to play a rpg with a story as good as BG 1&2, with the same type of interface (or modernized) that includes: team strategy, a map that you can explore (to prepare displacement, attack...), interaction between characters. The story should also integrate many character in order to have many story options. It should also have many location that you can explore when you want. I think also that treasure hunting is a very important think in BGs games, major ones have specific location, and there is also objet that you need to rebuild. I hated the random treasure attribution in NWN. I spent a lot of time to search some swords or armors when I played to BG2 (for me it's a key asset of BG games).
2D or 3D would not matters, 2D would maybe be more easy to have a large view of the team and bring a better strategy approach for battles.
To summarize BG for me it's more a way to approach RPG than a story. That is why I didn't liked NWN; it was not as deep as BG, it was too much focused on 3D engine and too linear. I prefer Dragon Age thank's to the non-linear approach that I only found in BGs before that, but the experience was not complete. Forgotten realms base is important I think, it helps to have a story very rich. So BG3 (or whatever its name) have to take place in somewhere in Fearun, but it is not necessary to be directly linked to BG1&2 event. Was about to get some inspiration about Drizzt stories or other Fearun tales?
I just had a new idea for BG3, or BG0 might be a better name. What about a game where you would play as one of the Bhaalspawn that you meet later in the existing game? I mean, the PC would be Sarevok, Sendai, Viekang, Ilasera, or some other Bhaalspawn that Gorion's Ward would normally encounter in the game. The new game would be the backstory of that character before Gorion's Ward meets them. When their paths eventually cross, whoever was being played as would win and the story would continue in a logical trajectory.
If, for instance, Sarevok won in BG1 and Gorion's Ward was killed, Irenicus would kidnap Sarevok and Imoen and they could have time to bond after being put in his dungeon together. Sarevok's plans as duke would never take effect because he would be kidnapped and presumed dead before they could be realized. Irenicus wouldn't care which Bhaalspawn he ended up with, since his goals would be realized regardless.
The game wouldn't be redundant or revolve around a character that was overpowered in any way because the story would start when the characters were weak and follow them up until they become powerful, just like it does now. The only difference is that the perspective would be different.
I think this would be a great way to learn more about the backstories of the other Bhaalspawn, while at the same time expanding the games in an interesting new direction. They wouldn't have to all be evil either. There are plenty of Bhaalspawn in Saradush who aren't evil, and it would also be logical that the current villains of the BG series weren't born that way, but gradually ended up that way through a series of circumstances and choices. People could potentially play them in ways that would not lead to those same choices, thereby resulting in a different outcome than in the original series.
This idea was partially inspired by the options in Warcraft and other similar games where you can choose to play as either side in the conflict and both campaigns have a chance to win, although only one becomes canon.
As I understand it, neither the "Icewind Dale" nor the "Neverwinter Nights" games share direct story continuity - it's merely a reflection that these tales are happening in specific parts of the same world. By that same token, "Baldur's Gate 3" doesn't have to have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn saga, the name would just indicate that the game takes place in that area.
This. Also, using BG 3 will draw in more fans than it alienates, in my opinon.
I think the best we will get is Dragon Age 3. I'm sure this will garner me some hate but Dragon Age was more or less Bioware's take on a modern day Baldur's Gate. Yes yes DA2 was completely terrible, but DA3 sounds more promising.
On a side note, if I had to pick one infinity engine classic that had a sequel I would go with Planescape Torment.
pfff why not do a Baldur's gate 3 with the bhaal spawn as the protagonist? why not even take throne of bhaal and flesh it out to make it a full sized campaign? Maybe the idea of battling Cyric on mount celestial? I dunno but the possibilities are endless and that prospect make's me very excited.
I really like how Assassins Creed names their games. They number a game with a new main character. Now its too late to do that now but I still like it. Now for the story of BG3, I don't see any reason why it can't be a new adventure that is also related to the Bhaalspawn story in some way. I also want the story to end with ToB but you DID get a chance a becoming a god at the end.
I think it would be cool to see what happened to the rest of the party now that your a god while also having a new group of adventurers, a new main character and a new story. I mean, do they worship you?
(Side note: wouldn't that be weird if one of your friends became a god? I don't know if I could worship any of my friends.)
For DA3 Bioware have stated they are copying Skyrim. I dont trust any more games from them anymore, all the great developers they had in the past that worked on games like BG have long left the company, and all they do now is churn out average / lame console action games.
@phase_nz - I wouldn't want CHARNAME adventures post BG2 because I'm not a fan of doing things on the Planes. Otherwise, we should have PLANESCAPE BALDUR'S GATE and go that route (and I probably would pass on that game).
I love the earthy feel of BG more than the demons, gods and outsiders feel of later BG2. But that's just one opinion in a goldfish bowl of minnow opinions...
Please forgive my ignorance because I really don't know very much about D&D or its rules. Several people have stated that BG3 wouldn't be able to use the 2nd edition rules. I know there are newer rule sets, but just because there are newer versions, why does it prevent them from using 2nd edition? Also, exactly how different are they and how would it change the game? In any case, shouldn't they use the same one for the sake of continuity?
Please forgive my ignorance because I really don't know very much about D&D or its rules. Several people have stated that BG3 wouldn't be able to use the 2nd edition rules. I know there are newer rule sets, but just because there are newer versions, why does it prevent them from using 2nd edition? Also, exactly how different are they and how would it change the game? In any case, shouldn't they use the same one for the sake of continuity?
The rights to the 2nd edition rules are owned by Wizards of the Coast (or something like that). They own the rights to all D&D versions. They don't license games with prior rulesets because they always want to promote their current rule set.
The BG3 game would use D&DNext, the upcoming new edition that isn't out yet. I can't give you good info on how the rules have changed and since the new one isn't out I'm not sure anyone can.
If you have played Neverwinter Nights 2 (solid game, IMO), that uses a later rule set from Baldur's Gate and might give you a sense of how the different rules can change the flow of the game.
On your last question as to whether they should use the same rules for the sake of continuity, I think a vast majority of the people on this site would love to see them use second edition rules for a new game but that seems 99.9% sure not to happen since WOTC will want to promote the latest, "greatest" version when that debuts.
The only way BG3 wouldn't use D&D Next is if it takes so long to be launched that 6th edition is out... So it's safe to assume it will be a D&D Next game.
BGEE and BG2EE may or may not be perversions of the original games; since I'm a huge Baldur's Gate fan, I'd be quite disappointed if the games didn't live up to the legacy. There are enough original team members, however, that I am confident they know what their consumers want to some extent. I intend to buy BG2EE even if BGEE is a major flop. And if both of them are massive failures and BG3 comes out... well, I'll probably still buy it. But I won't treat it as part of the saga and I'll judge it on it's own merits. But to say that there is no point to a BG3 is just wrong. The Bhaalspawn saga is hardly finished; on the contrary, it is just beginning. While many good characters become mortal and many evil ascend to godhood, this isn't set in stone. I always liked imagining a good character choosing to accept his bloodline and attempt to challenge the taint of Bhaal. Imagine a game in which CHARNAME plays as a god, or maybe if you chose a mortal they could make a storyline for that, but as a god there is so much material I could think of. First off, how about the conflict with Cyric? The possibilities are endless, but if they're going to call it BG3, I want to play as the Bhaalspawn with a choice between mortal or god, or at the very least as the child you could have had with Aerie. They could alternately say that you had a child with Jaheira and/or Viconia. All I'm hoping is that if there is a BG3, it isn't some Dark Alliance bs (as much as I enjoyed those games when I ignored their names).
Please forgive my ignorance because I really don't know very much about D&D or its rules. Several people have stated that BG3 wouldn't be able to use the 2nd edition rules. I know there are newer rule sets, but just because there are newer versions, why does it prevent them from using 2nd edition? Also, exactly how different are they and how would it change the game? In any case, shouldn't they use the same one for the sake of continuity?
The rights to the 2nd edition rules are owned by Wizards of the Coast (or something like that). They own the rights to all D&D versions. They don't license games with prior rulesets because they always want to promote their current rule set.
The BG3 game would use D&DNext, the upcoming new edition that isn't out yet. I can't give you good info on how the rules have changed and since the new one isn't out I'm not sure anyone can.
If you have played Neverwinter Nights 2 (solid game, IMO), that uses a later rule set from Baldur's Gate and might give you a sense of how the different rules can change the flow of the game.
On your last question as to whether they should use the same rules for the sake of continuity, I think a vast majority of the people on this site would love to see them use second edition rules for a new game but that seems 99.9% sure not to happen since WOTC will want to promote the latest, "greatest" version when that debuts.
Thanks, that clears things up! I guess it makes sense that they would want to promote the latest version, and I'm going to assume that the reason they keep coming out with new rule sets is so people will have to repurchase the D&D paraphernalia as well as making game devs purchase the right to use these new rule sets.
I am still curious as to how different rule sets change D&D RPGs.
I don't have NWN 2, only the first one in Diamond Edition, but I have yet to finish it. I'm bad for starting an RPG, getting distracted, then starting all over again. But, if I ever do finish it, I totally plan to get NWN2.
In any case, I do hope they end up making BG3 (or whatever they end up calling it...)
@phase_nz - I wouldn't want CHARNAME adventures post BG2 because I'm not a fan of doing things on the Planes. Otherwise, we should have PLANESCAPE BALDUR'S GATE and go that route (and I probably would pass on that game).
I love the earthy feel of BG more than the demons, gods and outsiders feel of later BG2. But that's just one opinion in a goldfish bowl of minnow opinions...
Frankly speaking I wouldn't mind if they made a new Planescape Torment... let's say Planescape Torment 2: Tales of the Bhaalspawn or Planescape Torment 2: Arundel's Diaries maybe even Planescape Torment 2: Into the Vault - doesn't really matter, as for Planescape every idea would be... well... it would make some sense actually ;-)
But I also hope the actual revival should eventually end up in making Baldur's Gate 3, and I'd really like to see it as the factual continuation of the story with (or maybe even more likely without) the protagonist. There have simply been so many fabulous characters, obscure orgranizations, remarkable places I would love to go back to after some, let's say, decade or two just to see the land after all of these Bhaalspawn crisis. And it doesn't actually matter for me whether there would be a direct connection to the particular main character as there are dozens of choices which actually doesn't require of you to be a particularly good or evil character. Some people could remember CHARNAME as the hero, who put end to the crisis of iron or the one who rescued the city of Trademeet, while the others can blame him/her on deaths of their friends, or neighbours. A particularly good job at creating a factual sequel to the well-written CHARNAME-based RPG (with a storyline which has already been concluded in some way) was the case of KotOR2 when you have a bunch of new characters dealing with the issues connected to the acts of Revan whatever he/she was remembered by the contemporary.
Comments
The relation between IWD1 & 2 is Icewind Dale itself.
The relation between NWN1 and NWN2 is the city of Neverwinter.
The relation between BG1 & BG2 is the protagonist and the story of the protagonist.
Therefore, if we are to connect the games in this way, the former are both connected by geography, while the latter is a series of story, not location. If a 3rd game is added to the series that attempts to familiarise itself based on location, when the attachment to the game is bred out of following the story of 'CHARNAME', then it is alienating and clearly, as has been said before, a marketing strategy to just sell more copies.
I just happen to have a problem with abusing the name of such a legendary series for the sake of making money.
If the argument is really based on whether or not the number 3 should appear in the title I think we've become a little obsessive. If using the Baldur's Gate name helps get the game made, who cares what number or subtitle is used? It wouldn't bother me if they skip a number and call it Baldur's Gate 4. Final Fantasy did that in the United States and it doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
For me, BG is well-rounded (I think, judging from what people say who did finish TOB) and it's the quality that should be continued into the game, not the story itself per sé. I see BG more like a strong brand-name that can help the next game being succesful, rather that the need for the story to continue. But mileage may vary, like people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean say (or maybe the Brits as well?).
(We're thinking awfully far ahead in the future here, right now it's anticipation for the end of this month, and then there's BG2EE to be created first.
It is not abuse of the name to use it as leverage to actually get funding to make the game in the first place.
I would call using the BG name to sell console games a bigger abuse than someone trying to make a new isometric rpg similar to the BG games ( I won't say IE game because I'd rather they didn't use the Infinity Engine and moved on). Hell I'd even take a BG game done in the Dragon Age engine, having seen some of the work done to recreate BG2 using that.
'We wanted to make a long awaited sequel to the Baldurs Gate series ... But we also wanted to make it modern to appeal to todays gamers, along with a few elements from the original series to keep the appeal for long term fans. Now the game is a full 3D hack and slash, and when you push a button, something awesome hasta happen!'.
( I always feel so unfriendly when I post on these forums..!
2D or 3D would not matters, 2D would maybe be more easy to have a large view of the team and bring a better strategy approach for battles.
To summarize BG for me it's more a way to approach RPG than a story. That is why I didn't liked NWN; it was not as deep as BG, it was too much focused on 3D engine and too linear. I prefer Dragon Age thank's to the non-linear approach that I only found in BGs before that, but the experience was not complete. Forgotten realms base is important I think, it helps to have a story very rich. So BG3 (or whatever its name) have to take place in somewhere in Fearun, but it is not necessary to be directly linked to BG1&2 event. Was about to get some inspiration about Drizzt stories or other Fearun tales?
If, for instance, Sarevok won in BG1 and Gorion's Ward was killed, Irenicus would kidnap Sarevok and Imoen and they could have time to bond after being put in his dungeon together. Sarevok's plans as duke would never take effect because he would be kidnapped and presumed dead before they could be realized. Irenicus wouldn't care which Bhaalspawn he ended up with, since his goals would be realized regardless.
The game wouldn't be redundant or revolve around a character that was overpowered in any way because the story would start when the characters were weak and follow them up until they become powerful, just like it does now. The only difference is that the perspective would be different.
I think this would be a great way to learn more about the backstories of the other Bhaalspawn, while at the same time expanding the games in an interesting new direction. They wouldn't have to all be evil either. There are plenty of Bhaalspawn in Saradush who aren't evil, and it would also be logical that the current villains of the BG series weren't born that way, but gradually ended up that way through a series of circumstances and choices. People could potentially play them in ways that would not lead to those same choices, thereby resulting in a different outcome than in the original series.
This idea was partially inspired by the options in Warcraft and other similar games where you can choose to play as either side in the conflict and both campaigns have a chance to win, although only one becomes canon.
On a side note, if I had to pick one infinity engine classic that had a sequel I would go with Planescape Torment.
I think it would be cool to see what happened to the rest of the party now that your a god while also having a new group of adventurers, a new main character and a new story. I mean, do they worship you?
(Side note: wouldn't that be weird if one of your friends became a god? I don't know if I could worship any of my friends.)
I love the earthy feel of BG more than the demons, gods and outsiders feel of later BG2. But that's just one opinion in a goldfish bowl of minnow opinions...
The BG3 game would use D&DNext, the upcoming new edition that isn't out yet. I can't give you good info on how the rules have changed and since the new one isn't out I'm not sure anyone can.
If you have played Neverwinter Nights 2 (solid game, IMO), that uses a later rule set from Baldur's Gate and might give you a sense of how the different rules can change the flow of the game.
On your last question as to whether they should use the same rules for the sake of continuity, I think a vast majority of the people on this site would love to see them use second edition rules for a new game but that seems 99.9% sure not to happen since WOTC will want to promote the latest, "greatest" version when that debuts.
I am still curious as to how different rule sets change D&D RPGs.
I don't have NWN 2, only the first one in Diamond Edition, but I have yet to finish it. I'm bad for starting an RPG, getting distracted, then starting all over again. But, if I ever do finish it, I totally plan to get NWN2.
In any case, I do hope they end up making BG3 (or whatever they end up calling it...)
But I also hope the actual revival should eventually end up in making Baldur's Gate 3, and I'd really like to see it as the factual continuation of the story with (or maybe even more likely without) the protagonist. There have simply been so many fabulous characters, obscure orgranizations, remarkable places I would love to go back to after some, let's say, decade or two just to see the land after all of these Bhaalspawn crisis. And it doesn't actually matter for me whether there would be a direct connection to the particular main character as there are dozens of choices which actually doesn't require of you to be a particularly good or evil character. Some people could remember CHARNAME as the hero, who put end to the crisis of iron or the one who rescued the city of Trademeet, while the others can blame him/her on deaths of their friends, or neighbours. A particularly good job at creating a factual sequel to the well-written CHARNAME-based RPG (with a storyline which has already been concluded in some way) was the case of KotOR2 when you have a bunch of new characters dealing with the issues connected to the acts of Revan whatever he/she was remembered by the contemporary.