Future potential projects: IWD2:EE, PS:T:EE & BG3 - your opinion
bob_veng
Member Posts: 2,308
i post this thread in response to trent oster's interview http://www.rpgamer.com/games/icewind/icewindee/icewindeeint.html - pls read it first, there the problematic nature of making IWD2:EE and PS:T:EE is brought up
In my opinion Beamdog should make all three games in the following order:
1. develop the 'Infinity Plus Engine, 3E' for IWD2:EE and release it first
2. completely remake PS:T in this new engine (yes, with 3E rules)
3. make BG3 in the same 3E engine
My reasoning for the above:
1. you'll have to do step 1 if you ever want to get IWD2:EE out >>> no other way around it
2. 2E in Torment doesn't work: the ruleset is unnecessarily complicated since the tactical aspect of the game is very straightforward >>> 3E is more straightforward and would suit the game much better (so the engine developed for IWDII:EE should be used)
3. 3E is better than 2E overall and interesting features presented in IWD2 are unused there and in IE games in general >>> making BG3 in 3E instead of 2.5E would make it a better and fresher game
THE ACTUAL POLL QUESTION: What should be the general course of further development and should Beamdog use (the hypothetical) 'Infinity Plus Engine, 3E' in any subsequent projects? (the poll options suggest the answer to this as well)
Simple english - what should beamdog make in the future?
***however*** the questions of whether and how they should make IWDII:EE and the order in which the games should be made/released is not included, because it is a less contentious of an issue i suppose.
In my opinion Beamdog should make all three games in the following order:
1. develop the 'Infinity Plus Engine, 3E' for IWD2:EE and release it first
2. completely remake PS:T in this new engine (yes, with 3E rules)
3. make BG3 in the same 3E engine
My reasoning for the above:
1. you'll have to do step 1 if you ever want to get IWD2:EE out >>> no other way around it
2. 2E in Torment doesn't work: the ruleset is unnecessarily complicated since the tactical aspect of the game is very straightforward >>> 3E is more straightforward and would suit the game much better (so the engine developed for IWDII:EE should be used)
3. 3E is better than 2E overall and interesting features presented in IWD2 are unused there and in IE games in general >>> making BG3 in 3E instead of 2.5E would make it a better and fresher game
THE ACTUAL POLL QUESTION: What should be the general course of further development and should Beamdog use (the hypothetical) 'Infinity Plus Engine, 3E' in any subsequent projects? (the poll options suggest the answer to this as well)
Simple english - what should beamdog make in the future?
***however*** the questions of whether and how they should make IWDII:EE and the order in which the games should be made/released is not included, because it is a less contentious of an issue i suppose.
- Future potential projects: IWD2:EE, PS:T:EE & BG3 - your opinion91 votes
- make both PS:T and BG3 in 2.xE28.57%
- make PS:T in 2.xE, BG3 in 3.xE7.69%
- make PS:T in 3.xE, BG3 in 2.xE2.20%
- make both PS:T and BG3 in 3.xE (even if you disagree with my reasoning)4.40%
- make PS:T in 2.xE, BG3 in 5E (or any future current edition)14.29%
- make PS:T in 3.xE, BG3 in 5E (or any future current edition)4.40%
- make both PS:T and BG3 in 5E (or any future current edition)4.40%
- beamdog shouldn't make BG3/PS:T:EE/both14.29%
- *none of the above* (ditch d&d altogether, make a completely separate game etc.)6.59%
- *i disagree with how the poll is conducted* / *i don't understand the question/answers*13.19%
Post edited by bob_veng on
3
Comments
3rd edition is now considered outdated and changing any previously released games rule set would be to the latest version.
And even though PS:T has a cult following, it does have the same name recognition as Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. Throwing resourses at it may not be financially plausable at this time he way Trent is sounding.
A new campaign would be desirable IMO that is not BG3. A good proportion of the trilogy fan base isn't convinced Overhaul can create a compelling sequel to the game. Getting BG3 wrong would be the end of the company. Allowing them to do a separate full campaign or two will allow them to hone their craft to perfection before attempting BG3.
As for BG3 being in 5e. I say this because I have done some testing in 5e and it feels like WotC returned to their 2e roots with it. I think that BG3 would carry the thematic feel of the original BGs in 5e as well as possibly attract a few newcomer 5e players. But the biggest audience they have is here and not everyone in the forums is on board with a BG3 game in the first place. I can't imagine it selling nearly as well as the BG:EEs or IWD:EE so again it might not be profitable at all.
Personally, I would eat Planescape EE up in a moment.
Icewind Dale 3!!!!!
It is hard to enhance Planescape: Torment since it is difficult to change the nature of the game (ha!) so all that this would really be is some bugfixes and a better resolution, both of which can be achieved through mods.
IWD2:EE would be nice, but I was not a big fan of that game to begin with and wouldn't be as interested (unless they made some serious changes)
Overall I'd be most excited by a new project, either in a new universe or a Forgotten Realms game in the same vein as Icewind Dale but perhaps with a different setting.
(you picked a wrong answer in the poll btw
do you think that before making IWD3, Beamdog should release IWD2:EE and then make IWD3 in that engine or do you have something else in mind?
Torment, while having a slightly different version of Infinity, still shares most of its ruleset with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. It shouldn't be the world's biggest hurdle converting that to... is it Infinity Plus they're calling it?
Icewind Dale 2 shouldn't revert to AD&D rules as that's -changing- the game rather than enhancing it (and that also goes for Torment). Also we'd probably lose the wonderful sub-races, wilderness lore and conversations based on conversation skills. That leaves reworking an allready heavily reworked Infinity Engine (as suggested) and frankly it's probably more effort than what it's worth. The reason it worked for the Baldur's Gates is that they were sure to sell at least decently merely by being Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale 2 has never had enough popularity, far as I can tell, to think it would be viable there too.
As for Baldur's Gate III... it's no secret that getting to work with the old rulesets and settings is pretty much impossible. The license holders hates that for some mysterious reason. So a Baldur's Gate III will have to use the stupid 4th edition rules and setting. Of course my opinion that 4th edition is stupid is just that, an opinion, but surely most people should be able to agree that they may as well not name BGIII BGIII if it doesn't share the setting and rules of the prior games.
you should also vote (3rd to last option)
and then two months later they should release Icewind Dale 3: The Enhanced Edition
It is a foolproof plan... who would suspect it?
Oh, wait, you mean you want Beamdog to make them? The company that needs 18 months to get a pre-existing game to a level of quality where it actually can be considered enhanced?
fair enough but here's an option for that in the poll as well (3rd to last)
PS:T is a sacred cow to a lot of people, clunky and dated interface included. You can't enhance it by adding content, either.
BG3 should either be 2e or non d&d, 4e and 5e changed the Forgotten Realms too much to use it as a recognizable setting. You would have to have it as a pre spellplague Realms, and it would fit best to have 2e so that it could relate to the other BGs.
I am also almost wholly opposed to bg3.
Because of how the game is written, you can't easily add in party NPCs either, and the existing NPCs are almost all unique in their abilities to the point of being kitted already. For example... floating skull that taunts enemies and bites them to death.
As for BG3 or IWD3, if the Inf+engine works, why throw it out for a new engine?
also, noone's discussing changing IWDII's ruleset, that game is already in 3e
when it comes to EEing torment it's impossible to bring in the biggest advantage ("unique feature") of the current BG2-based engine because you can't put kits in torment since there's no real character creation so the big question is what *other* major feature Beamdog will (or will not) come up.
if it's just going to be a technological update i think they shouldn't bother.
it's similar for IWD2 because that game already has the 3E implementation which has both kits and other features. IWD2 on the other hand might need some polishing; adding new content to it seems like a good idea (while adding content to PS:T doesn't, at least to me).
for IWD3, it's i think impossible to go back to 2.5E since IWD2 is already in 3E so a "new engine" (actually the same engine modified with 3e rules) would have to be put in place.
for BG3 i think that it'd be much better to go with a more modern ruleset but that's just my opinion.
I think they should make a new game in the forgotten realms, or other D&D setting.
It will be nice to see PS:T enhanced, if they will do it I'll get it as well.
As for IWD3 I think they should do IWD2 before they will go there, it just logic to go in order then skip it.
Make BG3 the way you like it.