Would you like to see a new story by Beamdog using the EE Infinity Engine?

Lemernis

Apologies if this has already been considered by Beamdog and ruled out. I've been away from the commuity for some time.

I recently went ahead and purchased BG3 only to discover that my computer can't run it. I was dismayed to discover that it would cost at least $700 to buy a new desktop to play BG3 at recommended specs.

That ain't happening any time soon... if ever... since I don't even know if I'll even like BG3--which let's face it, is an entirely different animal than BG 1 and 2. BG3 may be a great game, granted. But to keep it real, there's many other things I'd much rather spend that amount of money on. CRPGing isn't something I want to spend close to a grand on these days.

However! I still hold out a hope that I could conceivably yet enjoy a new CRPG game in this beloved setting of the Sword Coast--and using the (EE) Infinity engine:

Using all the resources available from BG 1 and 2 and the IWD games... Could Beamdog cobble together an entirely new story? Which of course is then a new game because the story is different.

I'd love for it to be set on the Sword Coast. I'd want it to be set roughly during the same time period as the BG series. But it could certainly be independent of the Bhaalspan saga. Starting at 0 XP. And like BG 1 and 2, it could follow roughy the same level progressions for games 1 and 2.

Now clearly the success of such a game would depend on the writing. (Fortunately, we already know that all the other basic components will work out amazingly well, right?)

It absolutely has to have a great story. My advice is you can't go wrong by following Joseph Campbell's monomyth at the most basic level. (Beamdog, I'm available if you're looking for a writer to consult on that!)

But anyway, a great plot, characters you want to spend time with, and fun dialogue. We don't have to try to replicate the sheer quirky charm of the BG 1&2 series experience. A new tale probably should carve out it's own unique identity anyway.

But think of it. A brand new story using the EE Infinity engine created with the resources available. A super-mod essentially.

Chronicler

I'd certainly buy it if they put one out, but I can't imagine they have the rights to use that engine on an original property.

Lemernis

Chronicler wrote: »

I'd certainly buy it if they put one out, but I can't imagine they have the rights to use that engine on an original property.

Well, I cant imagine it's any threat or competition to Larian's BG3. In a sense it only works to increase interest in the BG series and increases the chance of getting new customers for BG3 and D&D gaming products. WotC and Hasbro probably wouldn't mind. Does Bioware even exist anymore?

Edit: Okay, lol, per Wikipedia I see that Bioware is still around. Beamdog already has a relationship with Bioware to have gotten the EEs made in the first place. It's really just a contractual agreement, depending on how much money such a new game might make, or other benefits it coud generate, etc., for all the various stakeholders.

Chronicler

"The IP Holders probably don't mind" is not usually how issues of intellectual property law work out.

The engine isn't Beamdog's to do with as they please. If Hasbro hires them to do something with it, like they did with the enhanced editions, and with siege of dragonspear, then they can use it for that job, but they're not really free to just use it on their own projects.

In the same way that when Zack Snyder gets to use Superman when DC hires him to do a movie in their DC Cinematic Universe, but when he's moved on to his Fountainhead movie he no longer has access to that character, as baller as that would be for his career if he could just take the full DC toolbox with him in all his future projects.

Lemernis

Chronicler wrote: »

"The IP Holders probably don't mind" is not usually how issues of intellectual property law work out.

The engine isn't Beamdog's to do with as they please. If Hasbro hires them to do something with it, like they did with the enhanced editions, and with siege of dragonspear, then they can use it for that job, but they're not really free to just use it on their own projects.

In the same way that when Zack Snyder gets to use Superman when DC hires him to do a movie in their DC Cinematic Universe, but when he's moved on to his Fountainhead movie he no longer has access to that character, as baller as that would be for his career if he could just take the full DC toolbox with him in all his future projects.

Well, of course it's ultimately a matter of whether the IP holders see a big enough financial opportunity and/or other benefits to them for Beamdog to make such a product. Yeah.

You're assuming they wouldn't be interested? (If so, you may be right! I'm just choosing to be optimistic.)

ThacoBell

No, the Infinity Engine is kinda crap. Its a real testament to how good the games are that people actually want more of the buggiest, most hardcoded engine currently in use. Give me more BG style RPGs, but in an actually good engine.

Aedan

ThacoBell wrote: »

No, the Infinity Engine is kinda crap. Its a real testament to how good the games are that people actually want more of the buggiest, most hardcoded engine currently in use. Give me more BG style RPGs, but in an actually good engine.

Seconded. I totally agree. New engine with the original spirit.

spacejaws

Yea absolutely. I'd love to have seen Infinity Engine be used for different settings even. I had a dream once of playing Farscape but it was an IE Isometric RPG and I still remember it because of how cool it could have been to see the engine used in different ways.

Of course even a Beamdog game in an IE reminiscent engine like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder would be great but I dunno, there is just something unique about IE that is not captured by the imitators. I can't out my finger on what it is but the way the games play just feels unique and great. I mean, they are backed up with a ton of talent from writing to dungeon design to something as small as gear. The IE games just feel so godamn unique and quality that I would have loved to have seen 100s of different games try and recreate it.

Sadly, the only thing I didn't want them to be was turn based tactical like a lot of the Unity engine CRPG resurgence games turned to. Whatever Beamdog do next please don't be a turn based tactical RPG pleeeeease.

Lemernis

spacejaws wrote: »

Yea absolutely. I'd love to have seen Infinity Engine be used for different settings even. I had a dream once of playing Farscape but it was an IE Isometric RPG and I still remember it because of how cool it could have been to see the engine used in different ways.

Of course even a Beamdog game in an IE reminiscent engine like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder would be great but I dunno, there is just something unique about IE that is not captured by the imitators. I can't out my finger on what it is but the way the games play just feels unique and great. I mean, they are backed up with a ton of talent from writing to dungeon design to something as small as gear. The IE games just feel so godamn unique and quality that I would have loved to have seen 100s of different games try and recreate it.

Sadly, the only thing I didn't want them to be was turn based tactical like a lot of the Unity engine CRPG resurgence games turned to. Whatever Beamdog do next please don't be a turn based tactical RPG pleeeeease.

Yeah, I completely agree. The whole point here would be to be able to continue to enjoy the same time tested beloved RTwP 2nd Ed. AD&D based gameplay of the BG 1&2 games--just with brand new story/characters!

ThacoBell

@Lemernis "Yeah, I completely agree. The whole point here would be to be able to continue to enjoy the same time tested beloved RTwP 2nd Ed. AD&D based gameplay of the BG 1&2 games--just with brand new story/characters!"

None of that requires the IE though.

kanisatha

spacejaws wrote: »

Yea absolutely. I'd love to have seen Infinity Engine be used for different settings even. I had a dream once of playing Farscape but it was an IE Isometric RPG and I still remember it because of how cool it could have been to see the engine used in different ways.

Of course even a Beamdog game in an IE reminiscent engine like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder would be great but I dunno, there is just something unique about IE that is not captured by the imitators. I can't out my finger on what it is but the way the games play just feels unique and great. I mean, they are backed up with a ton of talent from writing to dungeon design to something as small as gear. The IE games just feel so godamn unique and quality that I would have loved to have seen 100s of different games try and recreate it.

Sadly, the only thing I didn't want them to be was turn based tactical like a lot of the Unity engine CRPG resurgence games turned to. Whatever Beamdog do next please don't be a turn based tactical RPG pleeeeease.

I agree with everything here except wanting the game in the IE. The IE is crap. There are so many other new engines that are really good, even specifically for isometric RTwP games. Plus, in my case, I'm also done with D&D rules. If someone can license just the FR setting, awesome. But D&D rules: no thanks.

So, what I want from Beamdog is a new-IP, non-D&D, party-based cRPG with RTwP combat and using a modern engine.

Rik_Kirtaniya

Make it in Unity or Unreal, keep it isometric + RTwP + party based, make it good, and remove the entire D&D ruleset and settings (instead make a brand new IP like how Obsidian did) so that the nosy WotC don't put their dirty fingers around it to strangle the soul out of it.

Balrog99

Rik_Kirtaniya wrote: »

Make it in Unity or Unreal, keep it isometric + RTwP + party based, make it good, and remove the entire D&D ruleset and settings (instead make a brand new IP like how Obsidian did) so that the nosy WotC don't put their dirty fingers around it to strangle the soul out of it.

Totally agree about WotC. It would be tough to play without mind-flayers, otyughs, Drow, beholders, Mystra, Tyr, Helm, Cyric, etc..., but it would be worth it to be unleashed from their arbitrary shackles!

lroumen

I don't care about new engines, I like this one. I like the 2e-esque ruleset, I like the somewhat simplistic visualisation of it. I know how to mod the things I am interested in and it contains tons of mods with great ideas. I only want a different storyline for a change. Siege was okayish in that regard, some of the overhaul mods as well.

I don't want to learn new things. And I tried the newer spiritual wishlist but none of them were really any good. Fallout3+, nwn, pillars, tyranny, etc. I only think the divinity original sins were any good.

No, for me ie is good enough to replay once a year with a mega mod list

ThacoBell

@lroumen So, what is it, exactly that you like about the IE that other engines can provide?

lroumen

Not needing to learn and invest in a new environment is a huge win situation for me. I have kids so I have no time for it.

IE is something I know and can do things with relatively easily. Suppose a new storyline comes out and I want to play it with a certain kit or rule tweak then I can just pull mod contents off the shelf in barely half an hour. I could even just install an npc and change its starting position and some minor patches in dialogue or area checks.

A new IE game will allow me to play and change quickly and continue playing.

ThacoBell

@lroumen So nothing, then.

lroumen

You undervalue consistency and practicality.

People don't switch from old to new coding languages just because the new one is better. They stick to the old one for a long as possible because it supports their use cases and knowledge.

ThacoBell

And restricts possibilites because of horrendous hard-coding.

lroumen

Which you only encounter if you want to do really complex things, and that is not in my scope.

WarChiefZeke

I can see the appeal in wanting to stick with what you know. The IE engine is time tested, many people know how to use it already, and there have been many spiritual sequels in new engines that failed to live up to the original. I would argue that is because they didn't use a 2nd edition like ruleset, but I can see how the engine plays into it. Learning how to mod in the IE was painful enough, i'd hate to have to learn a whole new system again unless they had ready made tools available or something.

ThacoBell

lroumen wrote: »

Which you only encounter if you want to do really complex things, and that is not in my scope.

"Complex" like, multiclassing anything that's not fighter, mage, thief, cleric, or druid.

lroumen

In some cases yes, but they do not interest me because then you generally indicate towards a different ruleset that I don't really like.

Anyway, there are ways around that. I have made kits that can swap class at will and you can make multi-class kits using spells from other competences resulting in druid-thieves, paladin-monks, bard-clerics, and whatnot.

Like I said, this is my personal experience that you asked about. You can make fun of that but it will not decrease my enjoyment with the engine.

Now, if there was a new setting I liked with a good base story and a toolset belonging to it that would allow me to create changes without excessive learning for the modifications I would like to make, then yes, I would give that a chance. But given the poor quality in replayability of the newer games, I do not see that happening any time soon.