@Lemernis Enhanced Edition already brought the BG Saga classics to the newer generation with updated releases in Android/iPad/PC/Mac etc.
And it was fan remade for NwN2. Atari/WotC see no money in remaking the BG games. Like I said, it would be milking the franchise and we all know, that we won't be satisfied with a 3D remake or any remake.
And just updating the graphics isn't enough reason for a remake. If it was remade, it would most likely be in another edition and fully 3D like Dragon Age.
I'm trying to be realistic here. It's just not worth the trouble remaking it. It costs time, money and would need a new engine.
The best we could hope for, perhaps. Is a big DLC pack that updates the sprites to much more detailed ones but still 2D most likely. That I approve and would buy.
A good portion of the stuff people praised about BG is irrelevant of the ruleset it uses.
BG could have used a unique ruleset and you'd still have the same NPC stuff happening. Does it really matter to Jaheira's romance if she used mana points instead of spell slots?
Well, the combat, class, and character creation system in BG is what I'm assuming keeps most people coming back over and over and over again. But it certainly does include story and characters every bit as much. No doubt about that.
Beamdog wouldn't get a choice in which rule set they use. They have said they must use whatever WOTC wants them to use as part of the license. So D&D 4 now or Next later. No 3.5 which would be my choice as well.
I think Beamdog might be able to make an argument that persuades WotC, but the final say is with Wizards, yeah. They own the rights.
Sure, the AD&D aspect helped BG, but people also go back to the Elder Scrolls games, or the Diablo games, so a strong customization aspect is what's needed.
D&D has always been about customization no matter what the edition.
...and we all know, that we won't be satisfied with a 3D remake or any remake...
...I'm trying to be realistic here. It's just not worth the trouble remaking it.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But you don't speak for me or most fans when you say we wouldn't be satisfied with a remake, and I disagree when you say it wouldn't be a worthy endeavor.
I think there is a possibility, remote but possible, of selling the game as a niche/nostalgia sort of product. Tie it in to WotC's recent reissue of the actual 2E books, maybe even with coupons going one way or the other, it could increase sales of both. And then WotC could be getting the same people who buy all the new rule books to buy some new old rule books too...
Like I said, remote.
But I play 2E. I'm an AD&D guy. I don't need BG3 at all. But if it's 2E, I will buy.
@FinaLFront Atari has been known to be quite pushy with deadlines, publishing unfinished games and not supporting the game for long afterwards.
Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights 2, Neverwinter (the MMO). The main offenders that I can think of are the first two.
It's the publishers that push the game for an early release and pay for the extended game support, through updates. If the publisher doesn't pay, no updates.
Wizards of the Coast are the ones that butchered the Realms with the Spellplague, made 4E which was hated by many (calling it too MMO like) and shutting down the open licence for 4E and making 4E much more wargame based than RP based.
Let's not forget that the latest and only DnD offering is the Neverwinter F2P MMO. The last one which could be considered a true DnD videogame was Neverwinter Nights 2 in 2006.
Sure, the BG Enhanced Edition is published by Atari but it's an enhanced edition of a classic game. Not a new DnD game made from scratch. Something that BG3 would be if made.
For those reasons, I don't want them to get involved.
@Stormvessel People have been complaining that they didn't like any 3E stuff in Baldur's Gate since BG2 came out. People are still complaining that changes are made to the original game that they don't like with the Enhanced Edition: "Blackguard is a 3E class. Sorcerer is a 3E class. Portraits don't fit. That character is too strong. That item too overpowered. I don't like the UI" These are complaints from threads I read on this very forum. Especially about the UI.
And people will still complain that the remake is too different from the original. "BG shouldn't be 3D. I don't like the camera. I don't like the changes. I don't like the new edition. I don't like this, I don't like that"
Small Edit: Sure, my approval is not required. But I have every right to express my opinion and disagree.
In short, like I said, I want a new DnD game in the style of BG. I don't want a BG3 or BG remake. I don't think that it would do it justice and if it's so different that it's unrecognizable, then why make it?
I would prefer if it had a different title, it was a new IP set in another city (Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Shadowdale etc etc) or even another campaign (Planescape, Greyhawk, Darksun, Eberron, Kara-Tur).
Why must it be called Baldur's Gate 3 if it has nothing to do with the original saga? That's like making a new Legend of Zelda game without Link. A new Metroid game without Samus. A new God of War game without Kratos. A new Tomb Raider without Lara Croft. Or Mass Effect without Shepard.
It could be a spinoff, I guess. But it wouldn't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn or CHARNAME story. And that's what the Baldur's Gate games story is all about. The Dark Alliance ones being console action spinoffs.
I would love an Icewind Dale III game though. Any edition. The games don't have a main storyline or established protagonists. A third game could really go wild with any changes almost as only the setting and gameplay is constant (The Spine of the World and DnD system)
@Archaos Ok, yeah I see where you are coming from now.
NWN2 is the only game I've played that you've mentioned, and I can definitely vouch for its bugginess and the frustration it's caused me. So I guess I'll take your word for the other mentions.
Your point reminded me of my experience with Skyrim. Buggy as hell, with an atrocious port to console that was unplayable. Bethesda knew Skyrim was far too demanding for those systems, yet did it anyway. I will never forgive them for that scam, yet for some reason Skyrim still maintained its ratings and people loved it. My point being if Atari did make a lackluster BG3, there'd probably be a lot of people that still liked it. I'd rather them at least try than never bother at all.
It could be a spinoff, I guess. But it wouldn't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn or CHARNAME story. And that's what the Baldur's Gate games story is all about. The Dark Alliance ones being console action spinoffs.
I would love an Icewind Dale III game though. Any edition. The games don't have a main storyline or established protagonists. A third game could really go wild with any changes almost as only the setting and gameplay is constant (The Spine of the World and DnD system)
You know, I always thought it would be a cool idea to play a linear adventure of a single individuals life. Either in part, or whole. All in the 2D style of BG of course. Imagine playing as Larlock, or Elminster. Even Gorion's life would be interesting. But we all know how that ended.
FINAL BOSS Sarevok: Deathbringer Assault Gorion: Death
Atari is not the devil (that's EA) but they're not saints either. I'm not a huge fan of some of their practices. Sure, some issues are the developer's fault but bugginess is usually because of an early release and lack of updates. The reason why NwN2 didn't get a final update is because that Atari wasn't going to pay for it anymore. Or so I've read.
And WotC is one of the big reasons that Bioware didn't want anything to do with anything DnD after a while. They're really pushy and basically want to control a big part of the game's development.
That's why Bioware made Dragon Age Origins and Obsidian is making Pillars of Eternity. They don't want publishers telling them what to do and pushing them.
I think that people don't really want a BG3. They want a BG-like game.
BG2 and Throne of Bhaal wasn't set in Baldur's Gate. They were set in Amn and Tethyr. And since the Bhaalspawn saga is complete, the story is concluded.
Something that's BG-like though? Like Icewind Dale or Planescape Torment or maybe Temple of Elemental Evil? Now we're talking.
The edition is a personal preference but Pillars of Eternity is exactly that. Baldur's Gate in spirit like the Infinity Engine games.
There's an argument to be made for 2nd - to keep the same mechanics as BG1 and BG2. There's no real argument for 3rd or 4th Ed - those are dead product lines and WoC need to license Baldur's Gate. Can't see them wanting to encourage Pathfinder lol 5th I could definitely see - especially since it's supposed to be retro. I could see WoC getting behind it for the purposes of promoting their new product line
Thankfully, 3.5E lives through Pathfinder and it's owned by Paizo not WotC. And they're pretty open about their stuff. Developers and almost everything in the books can be found online on their site.
The irony of 4E is that the system is very "gamey" yet no videogames were made for it except Neverwinter (MMO) and Daggerdale. And we know how good those went.
What I would love most of all is a game like Neverwinter Nights 2 or the Infinity Engine games (less likely) that uses the Pathfinder ruleset.
About 5E. Who knows. I don't know much about since it's still in beta or alpha, I think. I know that it has influences from ADnD, to 3.5E to 4E, with some new stuff instead of starting from scratch. But for f's sake, not another MMO.
Demonoid_Limewire Rerolling doesn't exist only in ADnD. Point buy is just more convenient and balanced.
Temple of Elemental Evil was 3.5E and had rerolling also, for example.
Yeah, but in 3.5E you can become a Sorcerer/Thief/Fighter/Paladin/Bard/Batman/Cleric/David Bowie/Druid/Mage, I am aware that how classes are implemented in 3.5E give a better RP story, but they can also be easily exploited. And the implementation of some classes in BG aren't exactly like in 2E, so if it's made more accurate to 2E AD&D P&P I would guess that it will be better.
And why do exploits matter in a mostly single player game where the multiplayer is designed for coop?
Besides, BG is incredibly easy to cheese too, no one seemed to really complain. Those who didn't like exploits just didn't bother to use them. How will this be any different in BG3? Is it going to be mainly a PVP game?
And why do exploits matter in a mostly single player game where the multiplayer is designed for coop?
Besides, BG is incredibly easy to cheese too, no one seemed to really complain. Those who didn't like exploits just didn't bother to use them. How will this be any different in BG3? Is it going to be mainly a PVP game?
Argue about how to best cheese the game? That happened with BG/BG2 too. Argue about trying to get developers to patch that cheese or not? Happened with BG/BG2 too. If BG3 uses 2.5e, what guarantees there won't be exploits for people to argue over?
Even if they remove 3E elements like the Sorc, there was still a ton of game breaking exploits that resulted from BG/BG2's implementation of AD&D rules.
@CrevsDaak And in ADnD you cannot dual class to various classes as well?
The ADnD 1st Edition is prime example of it. The Bard for example?
" Bards began the game as fighters, and after achieving 5th level (but before reaching 8th level), they had to dual-class as a thief, and after reaching 5th level as a thief (but before reaching 9th level), they had to dual-class again to druid. Once becoming a druid, the character then progressed as a bard, but under druidic tutelage."
The Bard in ADnD 1st is what you suggested as 3.5E faults. To be one, you had to be a Fighter/Thief/Druid/Bard.
And to be realistic, noone multiclassed like that in 3.5E. At best you multiclassed in two classes because you had a cumulative multiclass penalty otherwise.
Not to mention that you were going to suck in all of them if you multiclassed too much.
Prestige Classes though? Sure, there you could multiclass with more freedom. But prestige classes have requirements (feats, skills, alignment, race). And you are not going into them before level 5 in most cases.
I think you can dual class as much as you want as long as you have the required stats, in ADnD 2E as well. Not sure on that but ADnD 2E Player's Handbook doesn't say that you can't.
Comments
And it was fan remade for NwN2. Atari/WotC see no money in remaking the BG games. Like I said, it would be milking the franchise and we all know, that we won't be satisfied with a 3D remake or any remake.
And just updating the graphics isn't enough reason for a remake. If it was remade, it would most likely be in another edition and fully 3D like Dragon Age.
I'm trying to be realistic here. It's just not worth the trouble remaking it. It costs time, money and would need a new engine.
The best we could hope for, perhaps. Is a big DLC pack that updates the sprites to much more detailed ones but still 2D most likely. That I approve and would buy.
D&D has always been about customization no matter what the edition.
There is no reason a game titled "Baldur's Gate III" has to have anything to do with the baalspawn.
Modern games do not have to be 3D to be successful. Starcraft II and Diablo III were wildly successful 2D games.
I'm just being realistic here, there is no reason BG3 couldn't be a great game.
Please, make BG3. I want Atari to put their well-manicured claws all over this and make it better than the first two. And Wizards of the Coast.
Like I said, remote.
But I play 2E. I'm an AD&D guy. I don't need BG3 at all. But if it's 2E, I will buy.
Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights 2, Neverwinter (the MMO). The main offenders that I can think of are the first two.
It's the publishers that push the game for an early release and pay for the extended game support, through updates. If the publisher doesn't pay, no updates.
Wizards of the Coast are the ones that butchered the Realms with the Spellplague, made 4E which was hated by many (calling it too MMO like) and shutting down the open licence for 4E and making 4E much more wargame based than RP based.
Let's not forget that the latest and only DnD offering is the Neverwinter F2P MMO. The last one which could be considered a true DnD videogame was Neverwinter Nights 2 in 2006.
Sure, the BG Enhanced Edition is published by Atari but it's an enhanced edition of a classic game. Not a new DnD game made from scratch.
Something that BG3 would be if made.
For those reasons, I don't want them to get involved.
@Stormvessel People have been complaining that they didn't like any 3E stuff in Baldur's Gate since BG2 came out.
People are still complaining that changes are made to the original game that they don't like with the Enhanced Edition:
"Blackguard is a 3E class. Sorcerer is a 3E class. Portraits don't fit. That character is too strong. That item too overpowered. I don't like the UI"
These are complaints from threads I read on this very forum. Especially about the UI.
And people will still complain that the remake is too different from the original. "BG shouldn't be 3D. I don't like the camera. I don't like the changes. I don't like the new edition. I don't like this, I don't like that"
Small Edit: Sure, my approval is not required. But I have every right to express my opinion and disagree.
In short, like I said, I want a new DnD game in the style of BG. I don't want a BG3 or BG remake.
I don't think that it would do it justice and if it's so different that it's unrecognizable, then why make it?
I would prefer if it had a different title, it was a new IP set in another city (Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Shadowdale etc etc) or even another campaign (Planescape, Greyhawk, Darksun, Eberron, Kara-Tur).
Why must it be called Baldur's Gate 3 if it has nothing to do with the original saga?
That's like making a new Legend of Zelda game without Link.
A new Metroid game without Samus.
A new God of War game without Kratos.
A new Tomb Raider without Lara Croft.
Or Mass Effect without Shepard.
It could be a spinoff, I guess. But it wouldn't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn or CHARNAME story. And that's what the Baldur's Gate games story is all about.
The Dark Alliance ones being console action spinoffs.
I would love an Icewind Dale III game though. Any edition. The games don't have a main storyline or established protagonists. A third game could really go wild with any changes almost as only the setting and gameplay is constant (The Spine of the World and DnD system)
NWN2 is the only game I've played that you've mentioned, and I can definitely vouch for its bugginess and the frustration it's caused me. So I guess I'll take your word for the other mentions.
Your point reminded me of my experience with Skyrim. Buggy as hell, with an atrocious port to console that was unplayable. Bethesda knew Skyrim was far too demanding for those systems, yet did it anyway. I will never forgive them for that scam, yet for some reason Skyrim still maintained its ratings and people loved it. My point being if Atari did make a lackluster BG3, there'd probably be a lot of people that still liked it. I'd rather them at least try than never bother at all. You know, I always thought it would be a cool idea to play a linear adventure of a single individuals life. Either in part, or whole. All in the 2D style of BG of course. Imagine playing as Larlock, or Elminster. Even Gorion's life would be interesting. But we all know how that ended.
FINAL BOSS
Sarevok: Deathbringer Assault
Gorion: Death
Atari is not the devil (that's EA) but they're not saints either. I'm not a huge fan of some of their practices.
Sure, some issues are the developer's fault but bugginess is usually because of an early release and lack of updates.
The reason why NwN2 didn't get a final update is because that Atari wasn't going to pay for it anymore. Or so I've read.
And WotC is one of the big reasons that Bioware didn't want anything to do with anything DnD after a while. They're really pushy and basically want to control a big part of the game's development.
That's why Bioware made Dragon Age Origins and Obsidian is making Pillars of Eternity. They don't want publishers telling them what to do and pushing them.
I think that people don't really want a BG3. They want a BG-like game.
BG2 and Throne of Bhaal wasn't set in Baldur's Gate. They were set in Amn and Tethyr.
And since the Bhaalspawn saga is complete, the story is concluded.
Something that's BG-like though? Like Icewind Dale or Planescape Torment or maybe Temple of Elemental Evil? Now we're talking.
The edition is a personal preference but Pillars of Eternity is exactly that. Baldur's Gate in spirit like the Infinity Engine games.
There's no real argument for 3rd or 4th Ed - those are dead product lines and WoC need to license Baldur's Gate. Can't see them wanting to encourage Pathfinder lol
5th I could definitely see - especially since it's supposed to be retro. I could see WoC getting behind it for the purposes of promoting their new product line
Thankfully, 3.5E lives through Pathfinder and it's owned by Paizo not WotC. And they're pretty open about their stuff. Developers and almost everything in the books can be found online on their site.
The irony of 4E is that the system is very "gamey" yet no videogames were made for it except Neverwinter (MMO) and Daggerdale. And we know how good those went.
What I would love most of all is a game like Neverwinter Nights 2 or the Infinity Engine games (less likely) that uses the Pathfinder ruleset.
About 5E. Who knows. I don't know much about since it's still in beta or alpha, I think.
I know that it has influences from ADnD, to 3.5E to 4E, with some new stuff instead of starting from scratch.
But for f's sake, not another MMO.
On a side note, you every play Temple of Elemental Evil? Now that's 3.5e D&D done well (with Cot8 mod of course).
Temple of Elemental Evil was 3.5E and had rerolling also, for example.
Besides, BG is incredibly easy to cheese too, no one seemed to really complain. Those who didn't like exploits just didn't bother to use them. How will this be any different in BG3? Is it going to be mainly a PVP game?
Even if they remove 3E elements like the Sorc, there was still a ton of game breaking exploits that resulted from BG/BG2's implementation of AD&D rules.
The ADnD 1st Edition is prime example of it. The Bard for example?
" Bards began the game as fighters, and after achieving 5th level (but before reaching 8th level), they had to dual-class as a thief, and after reaching 5th level as a thief (but before reaching 9th level), they had to dual-class again to druid. Once becoming a druid, the character then progressed as a bard, but under druidic tutelage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
The Bard in ADnD 1st is what you suggested as 3.5E faults. To be one, you had to be a Fighter/Thief/Druid/Bard.
And to be realistic, noone multiclassed like that in 3.5E. At best you multiclassed in two classes because you had a cumulative multiclass penalty otherwise.
Not to mention that you were going to suck in all of them if you multiclassed too much.
Prestige Classes though? Sure, there you could multiclass with more freedom. But prestige classes have requirements (feats, skills, alignment, race). And you are not going into them before level 5 in most cases.
I will put my hand on my heart *Anduin places his hand on a jar* and say that I will play BGNext with whatever ruleset...
I would like the 2.5 version currently used in BGEE...
*Anduin scratches his brain... this involves opening another jar and sticking a grey finger into pickling preservative...*
BGEE uses 2.5 and some rules from 3.0 doesn't it? Not sure...