I don't think Infinity is the way to go, but there's no need to develop a proprietary engine, to say nothing of how that would skyrocket development cost. Just use Unity!
@the_spyder, but it would be a new engine--it would have to be! (If it is being designed from scratch, it's new--plus it's got to be designed for console.). I'm saying give us the same gaming experience but with a brand spanking new engine.
But I would also like to see a throwback to more of the more obscure specialty kits that were available in 2nd edition (?) (iirc, which is a big question mark). For example, I distinctly recall reading about the Shaman kit in an early source book.
I'm not making myself clear. I get that you are suggesting a new engine. I am asking why one is needed if the only upgrade is graphics. BG stands well on it's own without fantastic graphics (personal opinion).
And consider from Hasbro's perspective. They want to make a profit. That means low start up costs. They want to sell a lot of units. That means low(ish) price for a niche market game like BG. Which means "Prove to me the need for a new engine" when an existing engine exists and the only upgrade is graphics.
I am not arguing against a new engine, because that would be nice from this consumer's perspective. I am merely playing devil's advocate. Make the business case for the new engine. That's all I am saying.
Most of the newer generation of gamers would look down upon BG's graphics, don't you think? They're downright primitive from the standpoint of the games that exist today. Now I'm not saying make the game look like.., I dunno... Halo or whatever... or even Oblivion... I'd still want to see the game graphically stylized and using painted backgrounds versus a 3D simulation of reality. But obviously with the technology available today it would be dramatically more refined than Infinity.
Edit: I don't think this will persuade you that this justifies such a vision. But to sum, I'm pitching the following: remaking a classic gaming experience (i.e., the type of gameplay that the BG series gave us) for a brand new generation of gamers featuring 1) vastly improved HD graphics, 2) including a version available for console systems in addition to PCs, Mac, and tablets, 3) of course a brand new story, but set in the Forgotten Realms and using 2nd edition AD&D and the BG series real time combat system, launched in some way by the legacy of Abdel Adrian's/Bhaal's story in the current state of development of the Realms, is a product that figures to make a handsome return on its investment. This would be an "okay, let's go retro" type of design, with the marketing driven by the gamble that players that have grown up playing console games will like it.
I sort of get the impression that customizing an existing engine wouldn't be too much more work than tinkering with the Infinity Engine anyways, with the added benefit that the new engine would likely be more stable, flexible and robust.
never say never. If there's money to be had, I am sure someone will come up with some cockamamie rationalization. And there's always RETCON.
That's true enough. Anything is possible. I just think there would be a lot of hurdles in the way of a continued Bhaalspawn saga. For one thing more than a hundred years have passed in the Realms since the time of the game. So, with the exception of characters like Coran, most of the former companions would be long dead at the time of a BG3. And, Bhaal is apparently back, so it would be hard to justify a Bhaalspawn still running around.
That said, the name Baldur's Gate is attached to fond memories for many gamers. So, I would not be surprised at all to see a new game with that name, even if it has nothing to do with Bhaal or his schemes. My hope is that, whatever the storyline, the designers make a good game.
I'm willing to pay $40 each to remakes of IWD & IWD2 -- if they feature SCS lvl AI.
The IWD AI was pretty good to be honest, and some of the fights are both intense and hard in the original game. While the improvement was needed to BG i don't really see it needed for IWD.
The IWD AI was pretty good to be honest, and some of the fights are both intense and hard in the original game. While the improvement was needed to BG i don't really see it needed for IWD.
IWD AI *is* better than the stock BG AI - especially IWD2. BUT it still is abysmal in target selection, agro management, and mage/cleric use:
If you have one single front line superman (e.g. Paladin with all party buffing on him, including Stoneskin, which in IWD2 is targetable to others) he can be attacked by a score of enemies, impervious to their attacks and mow through them like butter, while the rest of the party just throw slings at them.
Short of a few scripted ambushes and Boss fights you are almost never in any danger. (HoF does not count; it is not balanced D&D, so it is a bit stupid.)
Mages don't dispel you or protect themselves intelligently. Lack of contingencies etc. also makes mages a whole lot less useful in defense and since YOU know when and how to buff with your own mages, you are vastly advantaged against the AI, who almost never manage to get any useful spells out due to all the interruptions.
IWD/IWD2 are better tactical games compared to BG/BG2, but they pale in comparison to SCS-enhanced variants.
It's been a while since I played Icewind Dale, but if I remember correctly, Icewind Dale was a game with a very linear story. There was actually nothing to decide in the game, the sequence of events and travels and fights was pretty much predefined. That would not be my sort of game. If someone made a relaunch of ID I'd probably have a look at it but I'm not looking forward to that. I prefer games where I can choose where I go and what storylines I would like to follow.
The IWD AI was pretty good to be honest, and some of the fights are both intense and hard in the original game. While the improvement was needed to BG i don't really see it needed for IWD.
IWD AI *is* better than the stock BG AI - especially IWD2. BUT it still is abysmal in target selection, agro management, and mage/cleric use:
If you have one single front line superman (e.g. Paladin with all party buffing on him, including Stoneskin, which in IWD2 is targetable to others) he can be attacked by a score of enemies, impervious to their attacks and mow through them like butter, while the rest of the party just throw slings at them.
Short of a few scripted ambushes and Boss fights you are almost never in any danger. (HoF does not count; it is not balanced D&D, so it is a bit stupid.)
Mages don't dispel you or protect themselves intelligently. Lack of contingencies etc. also makes mages a whole lot less useful in defense and since YOU know when and how to buff with your own mages, you are vastly advantaged against the AI, who almost never manage to get any useful spells out due to all the interruptions.
IWD/IWD2 are better tactical games compared to BG/BG2, but they pale in comparison to SCS-enhanced variants.
Icewind Dale have fights where you're up against 20+ enemies at once, including several spell casters. Some of those fights are already hard without enhanced AI, they would be brutal with SCS.
There is no fight in BG where you fight against 10+ enemies with several casters in the mix. Had there been that you would have gotten complains about BG SCS.
I don't mind a button in the option to click for SCS, but they should not enhance the difficulty in IWD as default.
I am not sure if a new engine would be good... There's many people working on it since 13-15 years ago. I know it's complicated to work, but it's a modding-friendly engine too.
I don't think Infinity is the way to go, but there's no need to develop a proprietary engine, to say nothing of how that would skyrocket development cost. Just use Unity!
I am not sure about that, Unity uses 3d graphics, I tried to make a game on Unity and it was pretty easy *and* boring, it was drag and drop 3d graphics you create on the screen and set a timer and actions to them. I like the IE better, you have to edit hex/ascii/bytes inside a intuitively-named file that is around 2 KB or 1.5 KB, and there are some good editors for the IE that make this very easy. Also, creating a game engine depends on how complicated you want the engine to be. You can use just two fields for every creature, HP and damage, and you'll get a non-graphical game where you can only hit creatures until they die. I don't support an new engine either, I'd rather stick with the IE, as limited, buggy and old as it is.
What @crevsdaak said -- if you get rid of the infinity engine you get rid of the mods, tools and such. And, even if it looks a bit ragged it is like a zombie -- it keeps moving on long after it should have died.
Most of the newer generation of gamers would look down upon BG's graphics, don't you think?
I'm not so sure. Look at the success of games like minecraft -- the graphics are as good as they need to be for the game to work.
I think there is a segment of people who will only buy games that have stunning graphics (like Skyrim). Those humans tend to buy very high end machines and to think of themselves as gamers. I *think* beamdog's audience is different -- I was one of the people that had to wait for the crappy laptop graphics patch and it seems that there are lots of us out there that occasionally play games on low end machines.
I sort of get the impression that customizing an existing engine wouldn't be too much more work than tinkering with the Infinity Engine anyways, with the added benefit that the new engine would likely be more stable, flexible and robust.
That gets to heart of the matter. I'm skeptical -- programmers tend to think that a new engine will end their frustrations but, more often than not, the programmers find that the new engine comes with new frustrations. Take the NWN engine which was going to be better than infinity for X,Y,Z reasons . . . the console / PC engine that came with Pool of Radiance and so on. There are plenty of engines that tried to replace / surpass infinity and did not succeed. More often than not mature engines are less buggy than new ones.
To belabor the point -- one might suspect that it would be easy to modify to 'enternity' engine to accept D&D rules but the experience with the temple of elemental evil suggests otherwise. Not a bad engine really but the mods took *much*, *much* longer than the devs expected and the final product had some very annoying bugs.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong but I think a switch to new engine at the current rate of development would mean waiting 4 years or so for a BG 3 beta. Truly.
TL;DR -- there are good reasons to keep the infinity engine; a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
@CrevsDaak I wouldn't want a move to full 3D either. I was thinking more along the line of Pillars of Eternity, which (I think) uses 3D sprites on hand painted 2D backgrounds.
There are many Indie RPG games with far worse graphic than Baldur's Gate and people still play them. It just proves how important a good story and gameplay is.
I am not sure if a new engine would be good... There's many people working on it since 13-15 years ago. I know it's complicated to work, but it's a modding-friendly engine too.
I don't think Infinity is the way to go, but there's no need to develop a proprietary engine, to say nothing of how that would skyrocket development cost. Just use Unity!
I am not sure about that, Unity uses 3d graphics, I tried to make a game on Unity and it was pretty easy *and* boring, it was drag and drop 3d graphics you create on the screen and set a timer and actions to them. I like the IE better, you have to edit hex/ascii/bytes inside a intuitively-named file that is around 2 KB or 1.5 KB, and there are some good editors for the IE that make this very easy. Also, creating a game engine depends on how complicated you want the engine to be. You can use just two fields for every creature, HP and damage, and you'll get a non-graphical game where you can only hit creatures until they die. I don't support an new engine either, I'd rather stick with the IE, as limited, buggy and old as it is.
Yea I'm not really in the position to say what should be done with the engine but what I would like to see (if they make a new game) is something made for people looking at doing modding (especially NPC creation).
I used to make scenarios and campaigns for Age of Empires 2. Unfortunately they are all gone, but the game had this great scenario editor that you could use for it. It let you set up triggers and actions, use all sorts of different units and rename them (and change their stats I think). But all in what was generally a very easy to use interface. Neverwinter Nights/NWN 2 also had the module editor though I don't know how easily you could make NPCs accessible in the main campaigns with it.
Anyways if someone does make a brand new baldur's gate it would be nice if something like this was included. It would let modders who are less interested in the coding of the game focus instead on writing. People who want to do more advanced coding/scripting could do that as well.
@FinaLfront are you talking about some new version/variant or about the release of Starcraft+all of it expansions+Starcraft II and it's expansions in HD (which I have 1 IIRC, but it does not run in my computer).
I'd like a Baldur's Gate 3. But not if Beamdog made it. Let's face it, Beamdog has been working on Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition for 3 years now, it's been released for 2, and it's still not fully-functional. There are still plenty of bugs that weren't in the original version and cross-platform doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. So instead of making Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition complete, they dish out the same thing with Baldur's Gate II Enhanced Edition. So now they're taking even longer to fix both games because of less work being done each week to each game. If they released a Baldur's Gate 3 then it would either: A. Not be finished, and take a good 5-6 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it BEFORE they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE. or B. Not be finished, take 3-4 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it AFTER they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE.
I think a company that has the skill and motivation to not only complete a game, but also to make a completely new one should do it if anything. I'd even take Bethesda remaking it in an Elder Scrolls interface with a D&D character sheet over waiting several years for something so simple that they could complete it in 2.
I would definitely be up for a BG3. I'd love to see what could come of that in the future.
As for the SCS in Icewind Dale EE if it's ever made. I have to ask is there even a version of SCS planned for the two EE games out already? Or do I have to download it myself from outside mods?
I would definitely be up for a BG3. I'd love to see what could come of that in the future.
As for the SCS in Icewind Dale EE if it's ever made. I have to ask is there even a version of SCS planned for the two EE games out already? Or do I have to download it myself from outside mods?
SCS isn't integrated with BGEE/BG2EE but it is compatible. Meaning that you should be able to download it (as a mod) for either game and install it.
I'd like a Baldur's Gate 3. But not if Beamdog made it. Let's face it, Beamdog has been working on Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition for 3 years now, it's been released for 2, and it's still not fully-functional. There are still plenty of bugs that weren't in the original version and cross-platform doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. So instead of making Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition complete, they dish out the same thing with Baldur's Gate II Enhanced Edition. So now they're taking even longer to fix both games because of less work being done each week to each game. If they released a Baldur's Gate 3 then it would either: A. Not be finished, and take a good 5-6 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it BEFORE they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE. or B. Not be finished, take 3-4 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it AFTER they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE.
I think a company that has the skill and motivation to not only complete a game, but also to make a completely new one should do it if anything. I'd even take Bethesda remaking it in an Elder Scrolls interface with a D&D character sheet over waiting several years for something so simple that they could complete it in 2.
I agree with the premise that Beamdog should bid, negotiaite, etc.,for the proper resources (money) to complete the project in a timely manner.
To create a complete game with the infinity engine TODAY is like mental suicide. You can have all the cool features of todays hardware without using it over the top bringing it in a good old school feeling like legends of grimrock or van-helsing (gfx wise) and then you start to delete all the features you can have for the sake of the similarity to BG? I dont know... 3d is great when you dont start focusing on it to much and use it only as a tool to express your view. 3d should be seen as a tool only and not as the main event in a game imo.
I mean take a look at dungeon siege 1. That gfx would be totaly enough for me with some new cool effects for this and that. But the "mass idiots" and presstitutes would whine about it i´m sure... so well...
Beamdog could just take Pillars of Eternity engine or just Unity and create an Infinity Engine-like game with whatever rules.
I won't call it a BG3 because I would NOT want a BG3.
There are so many settings, so many continents and cities in those settings. Does it really have to be a Forgotten Realms game in Baldur's Gate city? Because screw originality.
The best compromise, graphics-wise, is what PoE is doing. 3D models for customization, 2D backgrounds.
I'd even take Bethesda remaking it in an Elder Scrolls interface with a D&D character sheet over waiting several years for something so simple that they could complete it in 2.
Just needed to comment on that. Just looking at Fallout 2 and Fallout 3.
Baldur's Gate 3 will be an action/first person "RPG", with leveled enemies, items and quests, lack of interesting NPCs and no party combat.
It will also be multi-platform, with emphasis on consoles first and buggy as hell on release. Also enemies explode easily. Use left click for melee and right click to spam fireballs and magic missiles!
Firkraag? You can take him on level 1 since he's a scaled enemy. (No pun intended) Carsormyr? Meh, I found a +6 longsword on some bandits, who needs Carsormyr?
Comments
Just use Unity!
Edit: I don't think this will persuade you that this justifies such a vision. But to sum, I'm pitching the following: remaking a classic gaming experience (i.e., the type of gameplay that the BG series gave us) for a brand new generation of gamers featuring 1) vastly improved HD graphics, 2) including a version available for console systems in addition to PCs, Mac, and tablets, 3) of course a brand new story, but set in the Forgotten Realms and using 2nd edition AD&D and the BG series real time combat system, launched in some way by the legacy of Abdel Adrian's/Bhaal's story in the current state of development of the Realms, is a product that figures to make a handsome return on its investment. This would be an "okay, let's go retro" type of design, with the marketing driven by the gamble that players that have grown up playing console games will like it.
That said, the name Baldur's Gate is attached to fond memories for many gamers. So, I would not be surprised at all to see a new game with that name, even if it has nothing to do with Bhaal or his schemes. My hope is that, whatever the storyline, the designers make a good game.
If you have one single front line superman (e.g. Paladin with all party buffing on him, including Stoneskin, which in IWD2 is targetable to others) he can be attacked by a score of enemies, impervious to their attacks and mow through them like butter, while the rest of the party just throw slings at them.
Short of a few scripted ambushes and Boss fights you are almost never in any danger. (HoF does not count; it is not balanced D&D, so it is a bit stupid.)
Mages don't dispel you or protect themselves intelligently. Lack of contingencies etc. also makes mages a whole lot less useful in defense and since YOU know when and how to buff with your own mages, you are vastly advantaged against the AI, who almost never manage to get any useful spells out due to all the interruptions.
IWD/IWD2 are better tactical games compared to BG/BG2, but they pale in comparison to SCS-enhanced variants.
There is no fight in BG where you fight against 10+ enemies with several casters in the mix. Had there been that you would have gotten complains about BG SCS.
I don't mind a button in the option to click for SCS, but they should not enhance the difficulty in IWD as default.
Also, creating a game engine depends on how complicated you want the engine to be. You can use just two fields for every creature, HP and damage, and you'll get a non-graphical game where you can only hit creatures until they die. I don't support an new engine either, I'd rather stick with the IE, as limited, buggy and old as it is.
@Lemernis I'm not so sure. Look at the success of games like minecraft -- the graphics are as good as they need to be for the game to work.
I think there is a segment of people who will only buy games that have stunning graphics (like Skyrim). Those humans tend to buy very high end machines and to think of themselves as gamers. I *think* beamdog's audience is different -- I was one of the people that had to wait for the crappy laptop graphics patch and it seems that there are lots of us out there that occasionally play games on low end machines.
@TJ_Hooker That gets to heart of the matter. I'm skeptical -- programmers tend to think that a new engine will end their frustrations but, more often than not, the programmers find that the new engine comes with new frustrations. Take the NWN engine which was going to be better than infinity for X,Y,Z reasons . . . the console / PC engine that came with Pool of Radiance and so on. There are plenty of engines that tried to replace / surpass infinity and did not succeed. More often than not mature engines are less buggy than new ones.
To belabor the point -- one might suspect that it would be easy to modify to 'enternity' engine to accept D&D rules but the experience with the temple of elemental evil suggests otherwise. Not a bad engine really but the mods took *much*, *much* longer than the devs expected and the final product had some very annoying bugs.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong but I think a switch to new engine at the current rate of development would mean waiting 4 years or so for a BG 3 beta. Truly.
TL;DR -- there are good reasons to keep the infinity engine; a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
I wouldn't want a move to full 3D either. I was thinking more along the line of Pillars of Eternity, which (I think) uses 3D sprites on hand painted 2D backgrounds.
I used to make scenarios and campaigns for Age of Empires 2. Unfortunately they are all gone, but the game had this great scenario editor that you could use for it. It let you set up triggers and actions, use all sorts of different units and rename them (and change their stats I think). But all in what was generally a very easy to use interface. Neverwinter Nights/NWN 2 also had the module editor though I don't know how easily you could make NPCs accessible in the main campaigns with it.
Anyways if someone does make a brand new baldur's gate it would be nice if something like this was included. It would let modders who are less interested in the coding of the game focus instead on writing. People who want to do more advanced coding/scripting could do that as well.
A. Not be finished, and take a good 5-6 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it BEFORE they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE.
or B. Not be finished, take 3-4 years to be bug-free and work on multiplayer IF they release it AFTER they complete BG:EE/BG2:EE.
I think a company that has the skill and motivation to not only complete a game, but also to make a completely new one should do it if anything. I'd even take Bethesda remaking it in an Elder Scrolls interface with a D&D character sheet over waiting several years for something so simple that they could complete it in 2.
As for the SCS in Icewind Dale EE if it's ever made. I have to ask is there even a version of SCS planned for the two EE games out already? Or do I have to download it myself from outside mods?
I mean take a look at dungeon siege 1. That gfx would be totaly enough for me with some new cool effects for this and that. But the "mass idiots" and presstitutes would whine about it i´m sure... so well...
I won't call it a BG3 because I would NOT want a BG3.
There are so many settings, so many continents and cities in those settings. Does it really have to be a Forgotten Realms game in Baldur's Gate city? Because screw originality.
The best compromise, graphics-wise, is what PoE is doing. 3D models for customization, 2D backgrounds.
How expensive is the Unreal Engine to license?
(Yeah, I know it's 3D.)
I mean, X-COM came out great on all platforms. I suppose a decent RPG could be made without actually building an engine yourself from scratch.
Are there stable 2D engines that one can license for a high quality RPG?
Neverwinter nights was a good game, but had they avoided the whole 3D part of it, it would have been better.
Baldur's Gate 3 will be an action/first person "RPG", with leveled enemies, items and quests, lack of interesting NPCs and no party combat.
It will also be multi-platform, with emphasis on consoles first and buggy as hell on release. Also enemies explode easily.
Use left click for melee and right click to spam fireballs and magic missiles!
Firkraag? You can take him on level 1 since he's a scaled enemy. (No pun intended)
Carsormyr? Meh, I found a +6 longsword on some bandits, who needs Carsormyr?
Sounds great huh?