Beamdog needs to establish itself as a game company in its own right, not as a company which tweaks existing games. And I assume they plan on doing this with David Gaider joining them. I don't think he would have joined them if he knew he was going to oversee a continuation of the BG Bhaalspawn story. He is good at worldbuilding, overarching narrative, and characters. He isn't going to want to rehash Irenicus and Bhaalspawn.
Hm really? Well, hopefully that still means new content and not constant references to BG1 and BG2. I honestly think Beamdog needs to have new ideas and not just expand on existing material.
BG3 will be set in a different time and use a different set of rules. The only way to justify calling in BG3, rather than NWN3, SCL2, EotB4 or "Just ANother FR Game" is with story references to BG1 and BG2.
BG3 will be set in a different time and use a different set of rules. The only way to justify calling in BG3, rather than NWN3, SCL2, EotB4 or "Just ANother FR Game" is with story references to BG1 and BG2.
I haven't played NWN or NWN2, but weren't those completely separate stories? And weren't some of the expansion packs for NWN2 not at all related to the original campaign or use the same PC?
I mean, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance doesn't really have much to do with BG, I think it was the name recognition that the game tried to capitalize on.
Bioware had planned on a BG3 which had no connection to the actual Bhaalspawn story.
Some of the franchises were thematically tied rather than plot. Neverwinter Nights was about trying to get back to a true pen&paper feel. The games (even the expansions for the same game) were not necessarily tied related.
If BG3 would be part of the Baldur's Gate franchise without involving Bhaal's resurrection plan, it would need to focus on what made Baldur's Gate unique. Quite frankly, to my mind, that's a blend of solid writing, reasonably tactical top-down combat, and a solid focus on the party makeup and interactions (far more evident in BG2 and SoD, but mods bring BG1 up to par).
If BG3 were to capture the graphical style (not the engine, of course) of BG2 and put primary focus on the story and characters, it wouldn't have to be a Bhaal story. If it was a Bhaal story, it would have to canonize a version of the Scion. Bioware proved you can do this relatively well with the Old Republic games, which turned a player character into an active participant in the games that followed. Would the Scion be the kind of character that could rise above petty concerns of good and evil? Do their actions even matter anymore beyond the raw number of threats slain? Three would-be evil gods and a paladin who took Lawful Stupid, dropped the "Lawful", and ran with it? It would be interesting to see a canon representation of the impact the Scion had on the world, centuries afterwards.
That said, it sure as hell better not be that Abdel asshole.
Not necessarily related? The plots of NWN and NWN2 had nothing to do with each other. Storm of Zehir had nothing to do with either. Mysteries of Westgate had nothing to do with either. The whole purpose of the NWN games was to produce modular campaigns, and it was only a coincidence that some were linked together (Mask of the Betrayer to NWN2, Hordes of the Underdark to Shadows of Undrentide). Hell, it's not as if Icewind Dale 2 is a direct sequel to the events of IWD1 either.
NWN2: Masks of the Betrayer is a completely separate story for NWN2, BUT it assumes the protagonist is the same protagonist as that game, and some characters recur in minor roles. SoZ involves completely new protagonists, but characters and locations from NWN2OC appear.
In The Force Awakens, they retell the same story, but with new protagonists, and old characters taking on different roles.
The bottom line is you want to have some connections to the previous title (which could be character, location, or theme), or it isn't a sequel, but without going as far as TFA and retelling exactly the same story.
I think possibly the closest parallel to the relationship between SoD and BG3 is the Hobbit and LotR. LotR builds on a minor incident in the Hobbit, which the author rewrote, expanded upon, and retconned in later editions. SoD = Riddles in the Dark.
BG3 will be set in a different time and use a different set of rules. The only way to justify calling in BG3, rather than NWN3, SCL2, EotB4 or "Just ANother FR Game" is with story references to BG1 and BG2.
I haven't played NWN or NWN2, but weren't those completely separate stories? And weren't some of the expansion packs for NWN2 not at all related to the original campaign or use the same PC?
Neverewinter Nights 1 & 2 are tied together by the fact that both storylines occur in the city of Neverwinter. Even though 2 is a completely different story though, there's lots of references to 1. The expansions for both games assumed that you completed the OC story.
Not necessarily related? The plots of NWN and NWN2 had nothing to do with each other.
And yet, if you paid attention, there were references to things in 1 all over 2. For instance, the Blacksmith who created magical items, Marrok. There are several items in 2 that "have his mark". There's Lord Nasher, who is still ruling Neverwinter. There's a few "older" NPCs who remember the events of 1 and will tell you a basic summary of the Plague.
Storm of Zehir assumed that Khelgar (one of the MAJOR companions in the OC) had taken over Crossroads Keep, because the Knight-Captain (your PC in the OC) was gone. It made OBVIOUS references to events in both the OC & MotB, and it was dealing with the aftermath of those events. SoZ makes zero sense without the OC.
Mysteries of Westgate had nothing to do with either.
Mysteries of Westgate was not created by Obsidian. It happened to be a campaign, sold for profit, by Ossian Studios. Because Atari was the publisher for that campaign and the publisher for NWN2, Obsidian put it in NWN2. MoW comes free with the GoG editions, but it used to be $10 when it was released.
The whole purpose of the NWN games was to produce modular campaigns, and it was only a coincidence that some were linked together (Mask of the Betrayer to NWN2, Hordes of the Underdark to Shadows of Undrentide).
You didn't really pay attention to the rather obvious links between HotU to NWN1, MotB to NWN2, etc.? Because most of those links are so glaringly obvious that it's like the devs threw up a sign that said, "Did you play the OC?!".
Not necessarily related? The plots of NWN and NWN2 had nothing to do with each other. Storm of Zehir had nothing to do with either. Mysteries of Westgate had nothing to do with either. The whole purpose of the NWN games was to produce modular campaigns, and it was only a coincidence that some were linked together (Mask of the Betrayer to NWN2, Hordes of the Underdark to Shadows of Undrentide). Hell, it's not as if Icewind Dale 2 is a direct sequel to the events of IWD1 either.
BG is the anomaly here, not the baseline.
Really? I thought IWD2 was connected to IWD1, with at least a couple returning characters and a plot that ties back to the first.
By "not necessarily related" I meant SoU and HotU are related, but not to NWN1. NWN2 and MotB are related, but SoZ is a separate story (albeit with at least a few references to the other two, such as One of Many appearing and Neeshka being one of the fiends a hellfire warlock can summon). 1 and 2 are not related, of course, beyond the modular, Pen&Paper theme of the games.
All of the examples of games being related by common elements shows, though, that BG3 would not need to be about the Bhaalspawn or Irenicus. Technically, it could be a BG game just by merit of taking place in and around Baldur's Gate. And if it's set in the Sword Coast then chances are there will be many references to BG1&2 without requiring the Bhaalspawn as PC or Irenicus to return.
As someone else pointed out, Abdel is FR canon and has already had his fate decided in official materials. I don't think Beamdog will obtain the rights to supersede published FR material.
And honestly, why bring Irenicus back? He did his role well, his story is over. I really dislike when a villain just keeps turning up and won't stay dead and gone.
As I mentioned, the actual original game developers had plans for a game titled BG3 which had nothing to do with Baldur's Gate, the Bhaalspawn, or any of the story told in the BG games. It's the setting (Forgotten Realms) and theme of the original games which allowed it to be called BG3.
So if Beamdog is going this route, I will hope it's the spirit of the original games but only brief cameos and references from the games, not building from them.
Oh no, I agree, there is no NEED for BG3 to involve either Bhaalspawn or Irenicus. However, events in SoD lead be to suspect Beamdog are planning on using both those elements.
The main reason villains "keep turning up" in fiction is they tend pretty much identical to each other, apart from the colour of their tights. Why invent a powerful evil wizard with a cool voice when you already have one? There is no such thing as a completely original villain.
Oh no, I agree, there is no NEED for BG3 to involve either Bhaalspawn or Irenicus. However, events in SoD lead be to suspect Beamdog are planning on using both those elements.
The main reason villains "keep turning up" in fiction is they tend pretty much identical to each other, apart from the colour of their tights. Why invent a powerful evil wizard with a cool voice when you already have one? There is no such thing as a completely original villain.
I think it will depend on whether Beamdog releases any further content for BG2/TOB. If they do, I would imagine/hope that all SoD content will be resolved there. If not, then it might be carried over into a possible BG3.
With Gaider on board, I will challenge Beamdog to create a new villain, or at least one which doesn't rely heavily on tropes that we have seen in most fantasy stories.
but SoZ is a separate story (albeit with at least a few references to the other two
I would hardly say that having Khelgar as the leader of Crossroads Keep and a main NPC in the 2nd part of SoZ is something that we relegate to a "few references". The connections between NWN2 games and its expansions are so obvious that it's just shy of painful. Seriously, you really need to go back and play those 2 games and their expansions if you think the connections are just a bunch of "references".
NWN1 doesn't have a direct connection to HotU, but it does have an obvious connection via SotU.
how about that time when he literally burned the symbol of murder into a bridge? and if you recall in the dream sequence he was the ...i forget what its called but you know what i mean (spoiler free i guess? lol) its very possible that someone who is literally blood related to the god of murder, might accidently do it a few times when he doesn't notice, note the beginning of BG2 "you have much untapped power" and everyone knows that a goodie two shoes CHARNAME had NO clue on how to use his blood let alone control it, for example the random dreams he has which give him special powers
but SoZ is a separate story (albeit with at least a few references to the other two
I would hardly say that having Khelgar as the leader of Crossroads Keep and a main NPC in the 2nd part of SoZ is something that we relegate to a "few references".
SoZ also allows you to visit West Harbour, and catch up with NPCs from the beginning of NWN2OC.
If they are going to make bg3, I would love it if its a continuation of the bhaalspawn arch! I would suggest off the top of my head...
Since TOB concluded, the only way for it to make sense if its a continuation is that some kind of nemesis used time travel after the events of TOB. The bhaalspawn is transported back in time.... to the time of his birth lol, to stop the nemesis from murdering him! Events include seeing the story to how gorion came to possess the bhaalspawn, imoen's origins, sarevok's origin, how gorion came to become friends with jaheira and khalid, and how he eventually ended up at candle keep.
Party members include, gorion, jaheira, khalid hehehehe!
If they do continue the same story after ToB, I hope they chose to make him a god and the next villain will be Cyric also expand on what happened on the oasis.
but SoZ is a separate story (albeit with at least a few references to the other two
I would hardly say that having Khelgar as the leader of Crossroads Keep and a main NPC in the 2nd part of SoZ is something that we relegate to a "few references".
SoZ also allows you to visit West Harbour, and catch up with NPCs from the beginning of NWN2OC.
If they are going to make bg3, I would love it if its a continuation of the bhaalspawn arch! I would suggest off the top of my head...
Since TOB concluded, the only way for it to make sense if its a continuation is that some kind of nemesis used time travel after the events of TOB. The bhaalspawn is transported back in time.... to the time of his birth lol, to stop the nemesis from murdering him! Events include seeing the story to how gorion came to possess the bhaalspawn, imoen's origins, sarevok's origin, how gorion came to become friends with jaheira and khalid, and how he eventually ended up at candle keep.
Party members include, gorion, jaheira, khalid hehehehe!
If they do continue the same story after ToB, I hope they chose to make him a god and the next villain will be Cyric also expand on what happened on the oasis.
How about they just leave the Bhaalspawn in the dust, because the story is over? Yes, let's do that.
Agreed. Bhaalspawn was a great story hook. Now makes something different. Look at Star Wars. First it was rebellion vs empire and for 30 years they struggled to continue that story .
With force awakens, they ditched a direct continuation of those two opposing forces and now it's resistance vs first order.
So make BG3 another evil god is trying to do X, and you are the CHARNAME from humble beginnings that finds him or herself swept up in in these dramatic times.
If they imitate Star Wars, the main character will be a Cyricspawn, raised by Xan in a bookshop, who has to defeat his sister, then a druid obsesed with rescuing his second cousin once removed, a dwarven dragon diciple, and a cleric of Cyric who wants all of Cyric's power for himself.
If they imitate Star Wars, the main character will be a Cyricspawn, raised by Xan in a bookshop, who has to defeat his sister, then a druid obsesed with rescuing his second cousin once removed, a dwarven dragon diciple, and a cleric of Cyric who wants all of Cyric's power for himself.
That sounds cool.
Since TOB concluded, the only way for it to make sense if its a continuation is that some kind of nemesis used time travel after the events of TOB.
No, please, God no. Time travel is the worst plot device ever - I'd rather have my Bhaalspawn ressurected/stripped from godhood after Spellplague than *this*.
Comments
I mean, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance doesn't really have much to do with BG, I think it was the name recognition that the game tried to capitalize on.
Bioware had planned on a BG3 which had no connection to the actual Bhaalspawn story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound
"None of the characters from the previous Baldur's Gate games would have returned, the cast would have been completely original as well as the story"
If BG3 would be part of the Baldur's Gate franchise without involving Bhaal's resurrection plan, it would need to focus on what made Baldur's Gate unique. Quite frankly, to my mind, that's a blend of solid writing, reasonably tactical top-down combat, and a solid focus on the party makeup and interactions (far more evident in BG2 and SoD, but mods bring BG1 up to par).
If BG3 were to capture the graphical style (not the engine, of course) of BG2 and put primary focus on the story and characters, it wouldn't have to be a Bhaal story. If it was a Bhaal story, it would have to canonize a version of the Scion. Bioware proved you can do this relatively well with the Old Republic games, which turned a player character into an active participant in the games that followed. Would the Scion be the kind of character that could rise above petty concerns of good and evil? Do their actions even matter anymore beyond the raw number of threats slain? Three would-be evil gods and a paladin who took Lawful Stupid, dropped the "Lawful", and ran with it? It would be interesting to see a canon representation of the impact the Scion had on the world, centuries afterwards.
That said, it sure as hell better not be that Abdel asshole.
BG is the anomaly here, not the baseline.
In The Force Awakens, they retell the same story, but with new protagonists, and old characters taking on different roles.
The bottom line is you want to have some connections to the previous title (which could be character, location, or theme), or it isn't a sequel, but without going as far as TFA and retelling exactly the same story.
I think possibly the closest parallel to the relationship between SoD and BG3 is the Hobbit and LotR. LotR builds on a minor incident in the Hobbit, which the author rewrote, expanded upon, and retconned in later editions. SoD = Riddles in the Dark.
By "not necessarily related" I meant SoU and HotU are related, but not to NWN1. NWN2 and MotB are related, but SoZ is a separate story (albeit with at least a few references to the other two, such as One of Many appearing and Neeshka being one of the fiends a hellfire warlock can summon). 1 and 2 are not related, of course, beyond the modular, Pen&Paper theme of the games.
There are a couple of recuring characters too - Lord Nasher for example.
HotU is connected to NWNOC by several returning companions. The only complete disconnect in SoU and NWNOC
As someone else pointed out, Abdel is FR canon and has already had his fate decided in official materials. I don't think Beamdog will obtain the rights to supersede published FR material.
And honestly, why bring Irenicus back? He did his role well, his story is over. I really dislike when a villain just keeps turning up and won't stay dead and gone.
As I mentioned, the actual original game developers had plans for a game titled BG3 which had nothing to do with Baldur's Gate, the Bhaalspawn, or any of the story told in the BG games. It's the setting (Forgotten Realms) and theme of the original games which allowed it to be called BG3.
So if Beamdog is going this route, I will hope it's the spirit of the original games but only brief cameos and references from the games, not building from them.
The main reason villains "keep turning up" in fiction is they tend pretty much identical to each other, apart from the colour of their tights. Why invent a powerful evil wizard with a cool voice when you already have one? There is no such thing as a completely original villain.
With Gaider on board, I will challenge Beamdog to create a new villain, or at least one which doesn't rely heavily on tropes that we have seen in most fantasy stories.
NWN1 doesn't have a direct connection to HotU, but it does have an obvious connection via SotU.
You can visit part of Neverwinter.
Port Llast is a location in NWN1, NWN2 and SoZ.
Yes it does.
Aribeth, Daelan, Sharwin, Linu and Tomi are all in NWN1 and are Henchmen in parts of HotU.
Since TOB concluded, the only way for it to make sense if its a continuation is that some kind of nemesis used time travel after the events of TOB. The bhaalspawn is transported back in time.... to the time of his birth lol, to stop the nemesis from murdering him! Events include seeing the story to how gorion came to possess the bhaalspawn, imoen's origins, sarevok's origin, how gorion came to become friends with jaheira and khalid, and how he eventually ended up at candle keep.
Party members include, gorion, jaheira, khalid hehehehe!
Forgot about them. Do. Not. Want.
Ugh.
How about they just leave the Bhaalspawn in the dust, because the story is over? Yes, let's do that.
With force awakens, they ditched a direct continuation of those two opposing forces and now it's resistance vs first order.
So make BG3 another evil god is trying to do X, and you are the CHARNAME from humble beginnings that finds him or herself swept up in in these dramatic times.