1. If it continues the CHARNAME Bhaalspawn story, then the battles are going to have to be far more tactically intense and ridiculous in scale, almost becoming a Total War RTS in battles. Anything short of that will undermine the beyond godlike status your characters will need to be in that game.
2. If it turns out like this then a playthrough of BG1 BG2 and ToB will be necessary of *all* BG3 firsttimers because that'll be their tutorial for BG3.
3. Because of this, I think BG3 will have to be an all-new story, so why call it BG3? Just make a new game. Especially if...
4. They want it to ideally be on a non-IE engine (to take advantage of modern tech?)
5. They want it to use a new ruleset, BG CRPG is synonymous with oldschool AD&D.
It would be better to make your own IP, because BG3 doesn't make sense with all this in mind. You could really probably kickstart some funds for an HD version of a game in the IE engine. Highres sprites and backgrounds in the IE engine would be gorgeous. SoD had to blur to keep the transition to BG2 smooth but a new standalone IE title wouldn't have this massive limitation.
You also need to look at it from a longevity perspective. SoA shot the BG saga in the foot because the power gains were so massive you couldn't go much further once SoA wraps (big reason ToB was so dull). If you make a new game you can modernize a lot of BG issues (heavy inventory management, long trap detection times), but also pace the power gains better so you have a story to tell over five or six products instead of two and a half while keeping gameplay interesting because players don't hit the ceiling in the 2nd title.
Because that's another issue SoD had. Two levels (for me at least - I imported a capped BG1 party and capped them by end of SoD) over 30 - 40 hours is not exciting. It was a fun oneoff adventure in a familiar universe but we really need a new CRPG saga. BG3 is just bloat.
Odd. I just took a look at the Twitch stream. It appears to start some ways into the conversation. Trent is only present for the first 2 minutes, and during that time he says just two things, one of those being that he has to bail out.
Was there an earlier portion of this conversation, and might someone share how/where to view it, if so?
I agree that they should start something fresh. I could get behind a BG2 ToB interquel, but the idea of BG3 is a nono, if it's not part of the original saga it shouldnt use the name. On the otherhand I'd very much like them to stay in Forgotten Realms I just dpnt know if the 5 edition is any fun at all (I prefer 2e to 3e).
Just wanted to stop in quickly and say the video for the interview (and the stream afterwards) is being uploaded to my YouTube channel,...it'll be up in a few hours. Thanks to aj for the transcript, and thanks to Trent and Phil for coming on!
I agree that they should start something fresh. I could get behind a BG2 ToB interquel, but the idea of BG3 is a nono, if it's not part of the original saga it shouldnt use the name. On the otherhand I'd very much like them to stay in Forgotten Realms I just dpnt know if the 5 edition is any fun at all (I prefer 2e to 3e).
I also didn't like 3+ much, although I appreciate the bit more flexibility. 5E brings the 2E "feel" together with some of the 3+ flexibility, with a very simplified ruleset and without the possibility to become overpowered and with some very nice modifications to casting, for example.
Sounds weird that they might want to drop the IE engine. To develop a new one would require huge efforts and money.. hopefully they know what they are doing :P
Ah, I see. PoE engine is great, so I'd throw them money if they went in that direction. Not too good for modding though, to my understanding. Will look into the DOS engine.
(can't watch the video for a few hours yet. Thanks for the clarifications)
You can have an IE game set in Baldur's Gate that doesn't revolve around the Bhaalspawn.... And if it takes place at a later point in time where the Bhaalspawn is officially part of the lore, then they should absolutely use the name. Hell, the game doesn't even need to take place in the Sword Coast or Athkatla.
If BG3 isn't an IE game, I'm out. I don't know why people would want/expect otherwise.
- D&D is really not a good ruleset for a diablo type action game - more tactical and thoughtful game like bg is better suited to the rules.
That's a shame. I was really hoping for them to look at a possibility of a Dark Alliance port. Can't really say I agree that it's not a good ruleset for a diablo-style action game, I think DA did it very well.
I dont agree with using the name Baldurs Gate if its not part of the bhaalspawn saga. Better to use a different name in that case and grow their own. Im not against another infinity engine game if its not Baldurs Gate saga linked but I would prefer them to switch to using the pillars engine.
Speaking as someone who enjoyed SoD and who gives the team a lot of credit for pulling it off, I would still say that for me, making BG3 would be the worst idea imaginable. That story is done now, there is nothing that can be added to it, and trying would only result in something like Robocop 3 or Neverending Story 3. No matter how tempting it is, please, just no. (and if you are tempted to try watching those films... I can only I am so, so sorry)
Something completely disconnected from the saga, set in the sword coast, even including the city of Baldur's Gate, that would be fine, but given the reaction I have seen just from you guys daring to even touch the BG storyline, I can only imagine that it would be suicide to try and extend it. And I don't want you guys to commit suicide, because I want more infinity style games. Just please for god's sake don't try and ride the name 'Baldur's Gate' to fame, it'll be an albatross around your necks. Give us some credit and trust that we are willing to play a game that has a fresh setting. Pillars of Eternity had no problem and it isn't even the same universe, Numenera is pretty much a guaranteed sale even though it isn't finished. Nevermind the fact that FR is a gigantic universe itself, it doesn't do it justice to just keep re-treading the same paths, that is not what _adventure_ means.
The only addition to BG that would make sense to me (with exception of add in content like dlc npcs) is an interquel to BG2 and TOB using the infinity engine. Otherwise I want something new and I prefer the pillars engine appearance wise to D:OS. Of course wouldnt say no to an enhanced edition of Planescape or IWD but talking original creations mainly.
This may be wishful thinking, but I think if it were possible to release the infinity engine source code, then Icewind Dale 2 and Planescape enhanced editions would pretty much take care of themselves.... depends if Beamdog wants to spend all its time retracing the past or freeing itself up to build something new.
There is interesting lore currently in Forgotten Realms: Bhaal is actually back as god of Murder. So I think a BG game in the "future" (which is our present, in the FR timeline) would still be possible. Not with our Bhaalspawn - Abdel Adrian is officially dead, in 1479 DR.
Comments
1. If it continues the CHARNAME Bhaalspawn story, then the battles are going to have to be far more tactically intense and ridiculous in scale, almost becoming a Total War RTS in battles. Anything short of that will undermine the beyond godlike status your characters will need to be in that game.
2. If it turns out like this then a playthrough of BG1 BG2 and ToB will be necessary of *all* BG3 firsttimers because that'll be their tutorial for BG3.
3. Because of this, I think BG3 will have to be an all-new story, so why call it BG3? Just make a new game. Especially if...
4. They want it to ideally be on a non-IE engine (to take advantage of modern tech?)
5. They want it to use a new ruleset, BG CRPG is synonymous with oldschool AD&D.
It would be better to make your own IP, because BG3 doesn't make sense with all this in mind. You could really probably kickstart some funds for an HD version of a game in the IE engine. Highres sprites and backgrounds in the IE engine would be gorgeous. SoD had to blur to keep the transition to BG2 smooth but a new standalone IE title wouldn't have this massive limitation.
You also need to look at it from a longevity perspective. SoA shot the BG saga in the foot because the power gains were so massive you couldn't go much further once SoA wraps (big reason ToB was so dull). If you make a new game you can modernize a lot of BG issues (heavy inventory management, long trap detection times), but also pace the power gains better so you have a story to tell over five or six products instead of two and a half while keeping gameplay interesting because players don't hit the ceiling in the 2nd title.
Because that's another issue SoD had. Two levels (for me at least - I imported a capped BG1 party and capped them by end of SoD) over 30 - 40 hours is not exciting. It was a fun oneoff adventure in a familiar universe but we really need a new CRPG saga. BG3 is just bloat.
Was there an earlier portion of this conversation, and might someone share how/where to view it, if so?
Just wanted to stop in quickly and say the video for the interview (and the stream afterwards) is being uploaded to my YouTube channel,...it'll be up in a few hours. Thanks to aj for the transcript, and thanks to Trent and Phil for coming on!
Best,
--Arv
Some folks feared it would be only about Mizhena but it turned out exactly what most people wanted - about everything. Quality!
Thanks @ajwz for your transcipt. There's nothing better than to wake up and read it all in one go!
Thanks to Trent and Phillip for the answers! Looking forward to your next project!
I also didn't like 3+ much, although I appreciate the bit more flexibility. 5E brings the 2E "feel" together with some of the 3+ flexibility, with a very simplified ruleset and without the possibility to become overpowered and with some very nice modifications to casting, for example.
And BTW, here's the youtube version:
(can't watch the video for a few hours yet. Thanks for the clarifications)
If BG3 isn't an IE game, I'm out. I don't know why people would want/expect otherwise.
Something completely disconnected from the saga, set in the sword coast, even including the city of Baldur's Gate, that would be fine, but given the reaction I have seen just from you guys daring to even touch the BG storyline, I can only imagine that it would be suicide to try and extend it. And I don't want you guys to commit suicide, because I want more infinity style games. Just please for god's sake don't try and ride the name 'Baldur's Gate' to fame, it'll be an albatross around your necks. Give us some credit and trust that we are willing to play a game that has a fresh setting. Pillars of Eternity had no problem and it isn't even the same universe, Numenera is pretty much a guaranteed sale even though it isn't finished. Nevermind the fact that FR is a gigantic universe itself, it doesn't do it justice to just keep re-treading the same paths, that is not what _adventure_ means.