Skip to content

No, I don't want a BG3.

YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
Unless Beamdog receives permission to use 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition rules (to recycle the engine) and all the creative freedom necessary, they should not waste their time on a Forgotten Realms game. (Also, in my opinion, they have yet to prove they got the chops as compelling story tellers of the caliber that brought the original BG/BG2/IWD/Torment.)

I'd rather have them attempt something with Pathfinder or their own IP than waste precious effort on a still-born idea like BG3 :

BG3 is still-born because powerful Lawful Evil deities (Hasbro, Atari, WoC etc.) oppose such things to be done except as hollow cash-cows. (The only recent D&D game is a pay-to-win MMORPG where you can select between 3 classes for clickfest action.)

Beamdog: Make your own "Torment: Tides of Numenera"!
We'll be behind you.
«134567

Comments

  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,207
    edited June 2014
    Seeing as they would indeed have to use one of the new shitty versions of the IP, I'm not terribly keen on the idea either. What they could do, and what I'd love for them to do, is just make an entirely new campaign, slap it onto BGII:EE and call it an expansion pack.
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
    Archaos said:

    Alternatively, make a deal with the much more sensible Paizo and create a Pathfinder isometric RPG in the fresh world of Golarion and I'll be EVEN happier.

    Hear. Hear.

    I want good quality story telling -- along with deep, well-balanced (*) tactical combat. Such things come once a decade...

    (*) "balanced" in terms of challenge level; I care less about if all the classes all equally balanced. (BG was great even with the whole quadratic-wizards-linear-fighters thing...)
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    I take somewhat of a broader view on the whole thing. I'd be perfectly happy if we got another D&D "Style" game with the same level of writing, complexity and breadth as BG1-BG2. If it is BG3 using 2E rules? All the better (always assuming they find some continuity way so that we aren't dealing with 30-40+ levels).

    If it is IWD or something completely new, and the rules aren't so dumbed down and handicapped such that it feels like a console game, I'd accept that.

    So long as good story/complexity/excellent writing are #1 and choices/options/customization are #2 and Playability and fun are #3, I'm all kinds of happy.
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    Ygramul said:

    Unless Beamdog receives permission to use 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition rules (to recycle the engine) and all the creative freedom necessary, they should not waste their time on a Forgotten Realms game.

    Agreed with this first portion -- if BG 3 gets made it should be made with the engine and ruleset that has proven to be popular. Why spend all this time improving the engine just to set it aside?
    TJ_Hooker said:


    Even if they were able to use a previous edition, I believe one of the devs has explicitly stated that any new D&D game they developed would use a new engine. By all accounts the Infinity Engine is an outdated beast, and difficult to work with. Despite the nostalgia factor, creating a new game with it would just be counter-productive. (This is based on various comments on these forums from devs/modders over the past couple years)

    @TJ_Hooker Can you find that link? I saw that @dee say he liked D&D next but that's the closest I've found. While I know that 'use the current ruleset' has been TSR / WOTC policy in the past I'm not so sure it is the current policy -- the new WOTC modules provide instructions on how use your favorite ruleset, the pre first edition books have been reissued . . . lots of reasons to think BD could talk WOTC into allowing an infinity engine expansion.

    And I don't need to see BG 3. How about --

    "Wake of the Bhaalspawn" --adventures in world where the shadow thieves have been disrupted and powerful vampires hunt the night.

    "Rescue Waukeen" -- remake this adventure with the infinity engine

    "Descent of the drow series" --- BD has everything they need to remake these modules.

    "Allies against Cyric" -- charname has ascended and Cyric is about to attack. Can charname gather allies strong enough to help him survive the assault?

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited June 2014

    TJ_Hooker said:


    Even if they were able to use a previous edition, I believe one of the devs has explicitly stated that any new D&D game they developed would use a new engine. By all accounts the Infinity Engine is an outdated beast, and difficult to work with. Despite the nostalgia factor, creating a new game with it would just be counter-productive. (This is based on various comments on these forums from devs/modders over the past couple years)

    @TJ_Hooker Can you find that link? I saw that @dee say he liked D&D next but that's the closest I've found. While I know that 'use the current ruleset' has been TSR / WOTC policy in the past I'm not so sure it is the current policy -- the new WOTC modules provide instructions on how use your favorite ruleset, the pre first edition books have been reissued . . . lots of reasons to think BD could talk WOTC into allowing an infinity engine expansion.
    A dev saying that they would use a new engine:
    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/2425/#Comment_2425

    People saying that the Infinity Engine is a pain to work with:
    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/121094/#Comment_121094
    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3645/the-future-of-infinity-engine
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Archaos said:

    Give us Icewind Dale III ANY edition and I'll be a happy man.

    IWD3!
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    I'd settle for a isometric Dark Sun RPG with an half-ooze protagonist. His name could be Ozzy Oozeborn and be a hard boiled Bard in the making. Or something along those lines.

    I would settle for an actual REAL remake of Pool of Radiance. Take that all the way through Silver Blades (Pools of Darkness was a bit Meh in my view) and I'd be in heaven.

  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
    I wouls buy IWDEE (any version, any edition) if done well.

    "Done well" requires implicitly that SCS level AI by @DavidW‌ is incorporated to it.

    In fact, that is my pass-fail criterion for all such efforts: make an RPG worthy of good AI; make good AI worthy of the RPG.

    SCS/BG is unsurpassed in that.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Dee - I did not know that. See what happens?

    You learn something EVERY DAY, even if what you learned was "So that's what kills me."
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
    jackjack said:

    I would prefer SCS remain a mod. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Alternatively, incorporate it into the difficulty slider instead of silly things like 200% monster damage.

    SCS **AI** should be standard -- and all CRPGs should pray to have such a privilege.

    ... but SCS modifications and encounter challenges should indeed be mods. (I usually don't use most of them for my no-reload runs... they are not all well balanced.)
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    edited June 2014
    I'm specifically referring to the AI. I and others prefer to play without it, and shouldn't be shoehorned into using it. Just activate it at higher difficulty settings. What's wrong with that?
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
    Oh, okay then.

    Good AI is so rare that it never occurred to me anyone would prefer its absence.

    (I don't want higher hitpoints or more damage as a challenge: I want "core difficulty" with the best AI possible.)
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    I am with @jackjack on this one. I am OK with it being a option that could be turned on, or a setting on the difficulty slider, but don't force all players to have it regardless.
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    edited June 2014
    TJ_Hooker said:
    Thanks!

    Eh. Lets hope they have changed their minds -- BD is slow and if they are going to try and reinvent the wheel / modify the 'enternity' engine I become less interested. I know I disliked NWN / Dragon Age -- I may or may not like the new engine. Same goes for the new ruleset.


    For me a follow up to BG2 would:

    1. Be heroic -- the forgotten realms are heroic while greyhawk is morally grey

    2. Include the kitchen sink -- bioware stuffed every good idea they had into the game. Tons of spells, quests, NPCs etc.

    3. Be well written

    Beamdog has shown that they can write -- I'm hoping that they can show that they are also capable of allocating their time/resources appropriately.

    TL;DR -- I want a new game not a new chessboard.

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited June 2014
    A deal with Paizo , will enable them more creative freedom than Atari/Wizards of the Coast.

    We all know that they will not allow them to make a 2E game.

    But something like Pillars of Eternity (isometric, party based, 2D backgrounds, 3D models) with Pathfinder rules (which are 3.5E+) would feel and be REALLY awesome.

    They will have the rules and setting ready, while they focus on a story and gameplay that is like the Infinity Engine games.

    I will say it again, the Baldur's Gate Saga is over. It was the story of Charname in every game, unlike Icewind Dale or Neverwinter Nights.

    I don't want a prequel, sequel, spinoff whatever and it's not necessary.
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the reason behind the slow speed is because of the bear that is the Infinity engine.
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060
    Archaos said:

    But something like Pillars of Eternity (isometric, party based, 2D backgrounds, 3D models) with Pathfinder rules (which are 3.5E+) would feel and be REALLY awesome..

    Right on.
    Something like this would hold much potential.
  • TwaniTwani Member Posts: 640
    I just don't think Beamdog will ever get permission from WotC to produce anything that's not D&D Next.

    So, unless they're going to do IWD, IWD2, PS:T in EE editions, I would prefer them working on their own stuff rather then trying to make BG3. Honestly, I think no matter how good that game will be, they'd end up with nasty feedback: the game will never be all that us fans imagine it to be, and I admit that plainly. Moving on the story of the Bhaalspawn as a god? 'Well, what if I chose to remain mortal!' The story of the Bhaalspawn as a super high level adventurer? 'Wait, I chose to become a god!' The story of the Bhaalspawn's children? 'I chose Hexxat/Dorn, and my character is gay/not willing to have children!' The story of some random other adventurer in the BG universe? 'But what about my Bhaalspawn, I wanted to play them!'

    If Beamdog made their own engine, they could make it much easier to mod, use the best of all D&D editions while still making some systems from scratch, and create an entire new game with their own style of writing (which seems a bit more humorous then Bioware's, but still interesting). Of course, that costs money.

    Thus, I predict BG2 Android before we even hear the slightest about them working on a new product. (Though I still hope for Adventure Y.)
  • SuperFeatureSuperFeature Member Posts: 35
    edited June 2014
    Wasn't Atari's problem obtaining new D&D license? I doubt a smaller company like Beamdog would be able to obtain it then...

    Regardless, I think the new content Beamdog produced was excellent, if somewhat limited.

    Meaning... I'm not sure what a full product will look like, but if it was consistent with what has already been added, it'd be A+. It's just that adding in quests, characters, items into an already completed game is different from starting from ground up.
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,207

    LoL. Just LoL.

    I really love it too. It's amazing how many people do, good old lol is mentioned by people all over the world daily.
  • enqenqenqenq Member Posts: 499
    Archaos said:

    I will say it again, the Baldur's Gate Saga is over. It was the story of Charname in every game, unlike Icewind Dale or Neverwinter Nights.

    Nowadays I take for granted when people say BG3 they mean "another isometric perspective AD&D game", not necessarily a continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga because as you say, it's over; ToB had a huge sense of closure. Maybe we should mint a more neutral name? :P
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,060

    I am with @jackjack on this one. I am OK with it being a option that could be turned on, or a setting on the difficulty slider, but don't force all players to have it regardless.

    People having options is, of course, a good thing.

    ... but imagine having this dialog with your DM:

    DM: "You come upon a Bandit Encampment. You can discern many tents with hobgoblins, mercenaries, gnolls, even some robed figures that could be mages in the distance."
    Paladin: "I order the party to form a firing line at the corner and agro the nearest hobgoblin. I then run back to the firing line."
    DM: "Hobgoblin follows you."
    ( some die rolls later )
    DM: "Hobgoblin died. Party wizard critically missed and fussed her hair. No casualties."
    Paladin: "I go ahead; agro the next Hobgoblin; run back to the firing line."
    ( after having repeated this 23 times... )
    DM: "You come upon a tent; the biggest one there is."
    Thief: "I hide in shadows and investigate."
    (discovers 'boss' party with mage support - they didn't bother checking any of the commotion before, but, at last, a real fight! You barge in to the tent.)
    Cleric: "I cast Silence on the mage."
    DM: "Mage fumbles a bit as if gagged; realizes that Vocalize is for sissies; charges Minsc with his butter knife."
    etc. ...


    I dunno. Without SCS, BG is as if it is run by a DJ instead of a DM.
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    edited June 2014
    I'm a bit torn when it comes to this.

    On one hand i feel that the way beamdog has taken to the community and listened is absolutely amazing and i feel that they are one of the best companies out there when it comes to this. It would be a pleasure to see them make a new game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate.

    On the other hand... From what I've seen when it comes to their writing (the new content) I really don't feel that they are on the same field as IWD/Torment/BG and i can't help but to think that if they are going with what we've seen in BGEE, they won't be able to make it.

    Great company, lackluster writing. And i'm sorry but my opinion was set in stone when i found out that Hexxat was a vampire. Whoever let that get out on the market should have been fired, especially in a game like Baldur's Gate 2.

    It's like forcing a mediocre NPC mod on us.

    I apologize if my opinion or view on it has offended anyone.
  • NaturalBornKielerNaturalBornKieler Member, Moderator, Translator (NDA) Posts: 407
    Is this the wishing thread for BG3?

    Let me describe the RPG game I'm dreaming of.

    First of all, what's the strong part in the BG series? For me, it's the story. An elaborate setting, a set of interesting characters (NPCs) with strong personalities, understandable motives, and some interaction. Secrets to discover, riddles to solve, great deeds to accomplish. Decisions to make, decisions that make a difference to how the game unfolds. And then, a certain portion of humor in it.

    What I also personally prefer is the sort of "pausable realtime" game where I can stop the action and issue new orders to my party anytime. So that can be kept as well.

    Now, what would I like to be different? First of all, I would much prefer an open world game. I want to walk every road, climb every mountain, canoe every river, dive every reef ... heck, in Morrowind you could even fly the skies! I hate the "no entry" cursor in BG that says I cannot go to a certain position. I also do not care so much for the pre-rendered background sections.

    I want an epic game with continuous motivation. There always have to be new goals to achieve. I often noticed with many RPGs that they are most fun at the start, when I set out as a nobody with no skills worth mentioning and even a kobold is a challenge. As soon as my hero has acquired more skills and points and equipment and can walk over your bread-and-butter monsters, the motivation starts to erode for me. I don't want to concentrate on a few super-difficult boss fights only.

    Therefore I would like a system where the improvement of the character is not so fast and rather selective. And it would be even okay when the character not only wins, but also loses abilities. Like in real life. Training and practice makes you better, but wear and tear, accidents and injuries and hardships or simply getting older makes you weaker. (Scars and wrinkles could even show in the face of the character/s).

    How about this: You create a character, a young hero(ine), set out for adventuring, accomplish a couple of quests and heroic deeds, win fame and riches but also get older and wearier. And at some point you settle down somewhere, hang the head of the dragon you killed over the fireplace, find a partner, start a family and have a couple of kids. And then! One of the kids shows adventuring talent! He or she is eager to set out for his own adventure! You give him an old rusty sword of yours and an amulet and off he goes, killing his first kobold, and the story continues! Wouldn't that be a truly epic game? (Of course, as an evil character you could adopt a young, promising demon from a lesser underworld instead of raising your own children ... or steal a baby somewhere ...)

    Regarding the open world, I could imagine that the world can be filled with user-created content as well as with the "official" story elements created by the publisher. It should be easy to create mods and the publisher should review mods and integrate them.

    That more or less sums it up what I would like in the next BG. And Neera should be in it.
Sign In or Register to comment.