I think after IWD:EE i'd much rather see a whole new game styled like the BG and IWD series.. Honestly not even BG3 because there would be no point other than grabbing the name to sell more copies.
I'd also prefer it to be similar to IWD2 in that you can select shield sword combos and bow combos and switch with ease rather than having to unequip-requip just to go from 2 handed- sword and shield etc.
I would also hope any new game beamdog does is in 3e. 5e doesnt really fit and is way too modular for a video game. If not 3e, the pathfinder ruleset would be a refreshing new system to game with.
Tackling IWD2:EE would be beneficial to Beamdog in the sense that they would then have access to a superior engine with a more modern ruleset to use for potential new games. If making new games is in their plans, that is.
Although, honestly, I kinda doubt they could ever get permission from WotC to develop an entire new game in what is now considered an outdated ruleset. Both 2E and 3E have been retired a long time ago, and I think Wizards would rather push the new ruleset to sell books. It's sad, but that's how it usually works.
I think after IWD:EE i'd much rather see a whole new game styled like the BG and IWD series.. Honestly not even BG3 because there would be no point other than grabbing the name to sell more copies.
I'd also prefer it to be similar to IWD2 in that you can select shield sword combos and bow combos and switch with ease rather than having to unequip-requip just to go from 2 handed- sword and shield etc.
I would also hope any new game beamdog does is in 3e. 5e doesnt really fit and is way too modular for a video game. If not 3e, the pathfinder ruleset would be a refreshing new system to game with.
I somewhat agree and disagree with your sentiment about not continuing any of the existing franchises. I'm the sort of person who loves more of the same once I find something I like, but at the same time seeing new locales with unrelated plots might be nice.
As for rulesets, well, there's always 4th Edition. Never got its own game, sadly.
AND throw in preloaded no stat rolls and no 2e, play any race/class no races had class distinctions, the whole thing was a really easy, homogenized and un-fun experience and at the highest difficulty settings.
About the difficulty, I will say that IWD2 had the hardest final boss of any IE game.
Strange, I find it the easiest... They don't dispel your buffs and you just have to run out of their sight, kill all the minions first and then focus one of them down (Isair is easiest). They quickly declare forfeit after a taking a few blows. I had a much harder time with both Belhifet and Sarevok, the former dispels all your buffs, both have rooms full of traps, they're fast and hit hard and can take quite a beating.
Tackling IWD2:EE would be beneficial to Beamdog in the sense that they would then have access to a superior engine with a more modern ruleset to use for potential new games. If making new games is in their plans, that is.
Although, honestly, I kinda doubt they could ever get permission from WotC to develop an entire new game in what is now considered an outdated ruleset. Both 2E and 3E have been retired a long time ago, and I think Wizards would rather push the new ruleset to sell books. It's sad, but that's how it usually works.
I was thinking along similar lines that they should treat IWD2 as a 'new' EE project considering how different it is from the games they've already worked on.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if WotC relaxed a little and let people make crpgs with their retired editions? They'd make some more money, and people who like the Infinity Engine would get more Infinity Engine games to play. I'm not a pen and paper player, so I kind of associate different edition rules with different crpgs.
I agree, although nowadays Wizards' stance on previous D&D editions might be starting to change, if the 2E core rulebook rereleases are any indication. It's almost as if they're starting to realize that a lot of people are still fans of the earlier editions and the new editions are not a perfect substitute for them. There's a whole bunch of unsatisfied people out there hungry for new products pertaining to their particular interests, which is, accidentally, what sales people tend to call a "market niche".
Speaking of the 2E rereleases, I bought those even though I had already owned the originals, just to let Wizards know they're doing the right thing. Plus those books look real neat.
I agree, although nowadays Wizards' stance on previous D&D editions might be starting to change, if the 2E core rulebook rereleases are any indication. It's almost as if they're starting to realize that a lot of people are still fans of the earlier editions and the new editions are not a perfect substitute for them. There's a whole bunch of unsatisfied people out there hungry for new products pertaining to their particular interests, which is, accidentally, what sales people tend to call a "market niche".
Speaking of the 2E rereleases, I bought those even though I had already owned the originals, just to let Wizards know they're doing the right thing. Plus those books look real neat.
Whoa, I didn't know about the rereleases. That's a cool move by WotC!
As for rulesets, well, there's always 4th Edition. Never got its own game, sadly.
I think there are two games on the 4th ruleset, Daggerdale and the latest Neverwinter.
Neither uses the 4th Edition ruleset in any way similar to how IE games use 2E and Neverwinter Nights uses 3E. Neverwinter is an Everquest/WoW-style MMO with a 4E lore skin. Daggerdale is more in the vein of a Champions of Norrath or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance style of hack-n-slash.
I think after IWD:EE i'd much rather see a whole new game styled like the BG and IWD series.. Honestly not even BG3 because there would be no point other than grabbing the name to sell more copies.
I'd also prefer it to be similar to IWD2 in that you can select shield sword combos and bow combos and switch with ease rather than having to unequip-requip just to go from 2 handed- sword and shield etc.
I would also hope any new game beamdog does is in 3e. 5e doesnt really fit and is way too modular for a video game. If not 3e, the pathfinder ruleset would be a refreshing new system to game with.
I somewhat agree and disagree with your sentiment about not continuing any of the existing franchises. I'm the sort of person who loves more of the same once I find something I like, but at the same time seeing new locales with unrelated plots might be nice.
As for rulesets, well, there's always 4th Edition. Never got its own game, sadly.
4th edition is styled more like a fantasy war game. There's nothing wrong with that, but for infinity engine games i would like more role playing.. Even more so than what has been done in the past with bg1-2.. I'm actually kind of surprised we haven't seen anything better in this much time.
I somewhat agree and disagree with your sentiment about not continuing any of the existing franchises. I'm the sort of person who loves more of the same once I find something I like, but at the same time seeing new locales with unrelated plots might be nice.
As for rulesets, well, there's always 4th Edition. Never got its own game, sadly.
4th edition is styled more like a fantasy war game. There's nothing wrong with that, but for infinity engine games i would like more role playing.. Even more so than what has been done in the past with bg1-2.. I'm actually kind of surprised we haven't seen anything better in this much time.
First, every edition of D&D is a small-scale fantasy war game. Second, I'm not really sure how the ruleset affects your ability to roleplay. That's writing, dialogue options, and facilitating player decision-making, all of which function independent of any mechanics. You could roleplay with the Warhammer 40k tabletop ruleset if you so wished.
Some rulesets facilitate roleplaying more so than others due to their ability to help or debilitate the player being immersed in the game's setting. If the game mechanics are too "gamey", players tend to subconsciously treat the the game more as an action title, where if the mechanics show consistency with the in-game world players are more likely to care about that world and the events and characters in it.
Case in point: most people who have played Diablo 2 think that it's a game with a light or non-existent story, when that's not quite the case. The story in D2 is quite intricate and prominent, but due to the game mechanics being rather, well, action-focused, players tend to think the story is not important.
@Adul And 4E is no more "gamey" than its predecessors. 2E had tables for what variety and quality of harlot you'd encounter at any given walk through a city. You'd be hard-pressed to find a class feature in 3E that didn't relate to how many numbers you can throw at a given enemy or trap.
@Adul And 4E is no more "gamey" than its predecessors. 2E had tables for what variety and quality of harlot you'd encounter at any given walk through a city. You'd be hard-pressed to find a class feature in 3E that didn't relate to how many numbers you can throw at a given enemy or trap.
I've never played 4E or really know anything about it, so I didn't mean to imply knowledge of how gamey it may or may not be. All I wanted to say was that game mechanics do on occasion affect how open to roleplaying a particular title is perceived to be.
In this podcast, Trent Oster mentioned remastering IWD2 as a possible future project, along with NWN, PS:T, and Dark Alliance. So it sounds like IWD2 is currently something they're thinking about doing.
Comments
I'd also prefer it to be similar to IWD2 in that you can select shield sword combos and bow combos and switch with ease rather than having to unequip-requip just to go from 2 handed- sword and shield etc.
I would also hope any new game beamdog does is in 3e. 5e doesnt really fit and is way too modular for a video game. If not 3e, the pathfinder ruleset would be a refreshing new system to game with.
Although, honestly, I kinda doubt they could ever get permission from WotC to develop an entire new game in what is now considered an outdated ruleset. Both 2E and 3E have been retired a long time ago, and I think Wizards would rather push the new ruleset to sell books. It's sad, but that's how it usually works.
As for rulesets, well, there's always 4th Edition. Never got its own game, sadly.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if WotC relaxed a little and let people make crpgs with their retired editions? They'd make some more money, and people who like the Infinity Engine would get more Infinity Engine games to play. I'm not a pen and paper player, so I kind of associate different edition rules with different crpgs.
Speaking of the 2E rereleases, I bought those even though I had already owned the originals, just to let Wizards know they're doing the right thing. Plus those books look real neat.
First, every edition of D&D is a small-scale fantasy war game. Second, I'm not really sure how the ruleset affects your ability to roleplay. That's writing, dialogue options, and facilitating player decision-making, all of which function independent of any mechanics. You could roleplay with the Warhammer 40k tabletop ruleset if you so wished.
Case in point: most people who have played Diablo 2 think that it's a game with a light or non-existent story, when that's not quite the case. The story in D2 is quite intricate and prominent, but due to the game mechanics being rather, well, action-focused, players tend to think the story is not important.
And 4E is no more "gamey" than its predecessors. 2E had tables for what variety and quality of harlot you'd encounter at any given walk through a city. You'd be hard-pressed to find a class feature in 3E that didn't relate to how many numbers you can throw at a given enemy or trap.
This thread should probably be in General or Off-Topic anyway, since it has nothing to do with IWD:EE.
In this podcast, Trent Oster mentioned remastering IWD2 as a possible future project, along with NWN, PS:T, and Dark Alliance. So it sounds like IWD2 is currently something they're thinking about doing.