Skip to content

The Redundancy of Baldur's Gate 3

recklessheartrecklessheart Member Posts: 692
People everywhere on the forums are harking on about the possibility of a Baldur's Gate 3 following (fingers crossed!) the success of BG:EE. I would love BG:EE to be a huge hit, and I'm very much so looking forward to it. Others, however, are perturbed that it may be a perversion of the original game. This isn't the point of my post, but relates to the point I'm going to make.
A Baldur's Gate 3 will not please everybody. Nor will BG:EE. However, there's no reason why BG3 has to be related to the series. Most people agree that BG3 should feature a new adventure and a new protagonist, as the story of the Bhaalspawn has been concluded with ToB. BG:EE is inextricably related to the original game, and so hardcore fan criticism will be, to an extent, inevitable.
But if the majority agree that BG3 should be a totally different story with a totally different protagonist (perhaps even, in a totally new FR setting, like Tethyr, Cormyr or Damara), then why call it 'BG3'? Is it a project name? That would be understandable.
I would love nothing more than another Infinity Engine creation that retains the spirit of Baldur's Gate, but my argument is that there is no reason to call it "Baldur's Gate 3"; at the end of the day, this will only serve to alienate fans of the series. Feeding off the namesake of, albeit, the best RPG ever, will not, I hypothesise, be positive in the long-term.
I would love BG:EE and BG2:EE to spawn another Infinity Engine Forgotten Realms adventure - I don't think any news on the gaming scene would please me more, in fact! But please, PLEASE: Don't call it Baldur's Gate 3!!
ConphantusThe_New_Romanceg314nooberAntonrogueaceFaralethgimoxKilivitzWikkid_SuhnQuartzHexHammerwaardeniusCandramelekhdarrenkuoKirkorFluid29Necdilzoraegis1VedwintheTyrantRhulqdahrDavidecreator1629NadroirGodKaiserHellBlakes7Abelbooinyoureyes
«1345

Comments

  • lDanielHolmlDanielHolm Member Posts: 225
    There is reason to use BG3 simply as the project name, even if the game has nothing to do with the city of Baldur's Gate, or if it doesn't follow the Bhaalspawn legacy -- BG1 and BG2 are the premier Infinity Engine games, and I personally prefer their style over that of the others' (with the exception of how PS: T handled dialogue; that was simply brilliant). "BG3" should follow in their footsteps.

    I completely agree that using it as anything other than a project name is not the right way to go, though -- unless it either follows the Bhaalspawn story or if it is set in the Baldur's Gate city.
    AntonARKdeEREH
  • KyazzichetuaduKyazzichetuadu Member Posts: 9
    I agree with a lot of your points; however, I don't see why they couldn't call it Baldur's Gate 3 if it involves the same world and, indeed, if it includes Baldur's gate. That being said, they would risk alienating fans, so would need to stick closely to the recipe...
    Moomintroll
  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428
    I don't see a reason for BG3 to exist since the story of Charname is concluded in Throne of Bhaal.
    g314GodKaiserHell
  • XavioriaXavioria Member Posts: 874
    I may have understood you wrong, but I do agree that if the story doesn't follow BG1 an 2 in some way it can't be "Third" in a series that was concluded. That makes absolutely no sense. A spin off of some sort WOULD make sense, but what I think that the majority of the community here would like to further import their main character.
    Anton
  • Doom972Doom972 Member Posts: 150

    I agree with a lot of your points; however, I don't see why they couldn't call it Baldur's Gate 3 if it involves the same world and, indeed, if it includes Baldur's gate. That being said, they would risk alienating fans, so would need to stick closely to the recipe...

    That same world is used by many other video games, books, comics, etc. It isn't unique to Baldur's Gate. For that reason it wouldn't be a good enough reason to call a game BG3 if that's the only thing it will have in common with BG 1&2.
    If it actually involves Baldur's Gate in a significant way, it would be legitimate to call the game BG3, in my opinion.
    Fluid29
  • Daedalus87mDaedalus87m Member Posts: 92
    edited August 2012

    I don't see a reason for BG3 to exist since the story of Charname is concluded in Throne of Bhaal.

    It doesn't have to be about the Bhaal story, in the end the game is called Baldur's Gate, not Bhaal XY. It can be a new story in the same area.
    They can do it just the way Icewind Dale 2 had a different party, villians, story etc. than Icewind Dale 1, but still a lot of areas where the same.
    JolanthuspurebredcornMikeMasters
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    Personally I'd rather see a continuation of the BG2/ToB storyline, even if it means they have to retcon ToB or come up with a contrived way to de-deify the main character and reduce him in level - a bit like what happens to Kratos in God of War 2, for example.

    In short, if I can't import my BG/BG2/ToB character into it, then to me it isn't BG3.
    XavioriaScooterAntonFluid29
  • DreamDream Member Posts: 52
    If it's not related to charname's story then it shouldn't be BG3; I hate sequels that are such in name only.

    They can easily continue the story without having to retcon the ending (well, they'd have to ignore the dozen or so years of d&d storytelling since ToB came out, but that's beside the point). Have some unknown entity (Cyric, another bhaalspawn, whatever) steal/coalesce Bhaal's divine essence. After that charname either loses his divine power or hears about the event and then the game begins from there (the first 2-3 hours would be different based on how you ended ToB). If that's not to your liking then there are countless other explanations they could go with it that wouldn't appear contrived or break the story.

    Baldur's Gate has always been about charname's journey. If they want to make another game that's similar in style then go for it, I'm sure it'll be great, but don't name it BG3.
    ScooterrecklessheartFluid29
  • imajasjamimajasjam Member Posts: 59
    You base it in modern day forgotten realms 4th ed (100 or so years after BG2). From memory, Baldurs Gate the city is now the biggest on the sword coast and has changed heaps in the last century.

    Whole new adventure, original story, completely changed city, 6 party member tactical combat and you can reference the original games to help with marketing.





    The_New_RomanceAntonrecklessheartpurebredcorn
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,498
    edited August 2012
    I'm curious did people have the same problem with Baldur's gate: Dark Alliance? if not then can't we just drop the "3" and call it Baldur's Gate: Beljuril, Quest for the Hen-Gem (or whatever).
    Post edited by Moomintroll on
  • paulsifer42paulsifer42 Member Posts: 267
    I actually think the name should be kept. Lots of people know and love the Baldur's Gate games, and their ears would perk up a lot more to that name than a new IP's name. Even if it has nothing to do with BG, they should still keep it.
    Son_of_Imoen
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    As I understand it, neither the "Icewind Dale" nor the "Neverwinter Nights" games share direct story continuity - it's merely a reflection that these tales are happening in specific parts of the same world. By that same token, "Baldur's Gate 3" doesn't have to have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn saga, the name would just indicate that the game takes place in that area.
    mlnevese
  • Twilight_FoxTwilight_Fox Member Posts: 448
    Personally, I just want another game on this engine with the isometric view of bg1, bg2, iwd1, iwd2 (planescape, toee, etc). I have waited a long time for dragon age just to be disappointed.
    MoomintrollAntonKlonoa
  • ArrakisArrakis Member Posts: 11
    As long as it takes place in Baldur's Gate city, I don't see any problem in using the name.
    Fluid29
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,416
    It could also be called Baldur's Gate: Something, rather than Baldur's Gate 3. It provides a link to the original name, but is not marked as a clear successor, which might be offputting to some.
    recklessheartwaardeniusFluid29
  • ArrakisArrakis Member Posts: 11
    There is no reason for BG3 to continue the story of BG 2. There are many "... 2" games that start a new story: Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Dragon Age, Spellforce, Deus Ex,...
    Moomintroll
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    I'm with @Twilight_Fox. I just want another isometric game. Preferable in the Forgotten Realms setting.
    DJKajuruRenulan
  • ShadowShadow Member Posts: 20
    Personally with computers vast change in processing speed, memory, hard drive space and so much others. I would personally love to see a world with all the areas of the first 2 plus a whole new area. Though remastering all the areas would take a lot of work.

    I'm pretty much against a whole denial of the first 2 games if it's just going to be called Baldurs Gate 3. Baldurs Gate : would be a lot better name as already suggested by @Thels.
    Xavioria
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    As long as the mechanics (isometric real-time RPG with pause function) are the same and general feel (fairly dark but high fantasy), I'm ok with keeping the name. As long as it's set in Baldur's Gate, otherwise it makes no sense. Icewind Dale 2 was also not set in the Anauroch desert.
  • Greenman019Greenman019 Member Posts: 206
    I've always seen Baldur's Gate as a sorta brand name, so I'd like a BG3; New adventure and protagonist etc. So long as the mechanics were the same, of course.
  • SamielSamiel Member Posts: 156
    Ok I'll try to sort this out. Set the game elsewhere but use the narrative hook that the tale is bieng told in a tavern in Baldur's Gate. In fact we could make a new series Tales From Baldur's Gate, where a new story is told each game in the eponymous city, allowing them to keep the name above the door so to speak, without bieng tied to the sword coast.
    The_New_RomanceGrifKristie83
  • Drugar said:

    As long as the mechanics (isometric real-time RPG with pause function) are the same and general feel (fairly dark but high fantasy), I'm ok with keeping the name. As long as it's set in Baldur's Gate, otherwise it makes no sense. Icewind Dale 2 was also not set in the Anauroch desert.

    the story of baldur's gate 2 is not in baldur's gate, however it was very good, i think it's more about the story line than the place. And it is not necessary to pursue the bhaalspawn story line from the end of bg2 throne of bhaal, which really put an end to it, but it would be interesting to go back in time in the story line for example at gorion's youth at the time were he fought fierkraag

  • The_New_RomanceThe_New_Romance Member Posts: 839
    Problem is, there probably won't be any new Infinity Games because the ruleset of D&D has evolved so much and Wizards of the Coast will most likely want new gaming endeavours to support the most current ruleset. I just can't see 4E working in Infinity. The upcoming D&D Next (5E) might be different, but that is still a year or so off, so we can't really tell.
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    What I'm liking about D&D Next so far (which is for the most part still uncomfirmed but still) is that you can basicly handpick things from certain editions, which might allow game producers to re-create 2nd Edition rules for games.
    If they also go through with supporting ALL the timelines, it would open up a giant opportunity for D&D game developers everywhere. They could make adventures before the Time of Troubles, or during, just after, pre spellplague, post spellplague, possibly even in the time of Netheril. I would fully endorse it.
    The_New_Romance
  • The_New_RomanceThe_New_Romance Member Posts: 839
    That is of course true. I haven't lost hope yet that the outcome will actually be very favourable or even allow for new Infinity Engine games, but it's just too early to really tell. Is there really a notion of supporting all FR timelines? I know that was brought forth by a part of the community, but it seems unwieldy and not very favourable from a business point of view.
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    I don't see how it's a bad business deal. The aim is selling more books. By supplying all of the timelines, you can bring out three or four different campaign setting books, supplements for all the ages, even create a post-post spellplague era with which they can take a few more risks because their entire FR product line isn't tied to it.

    I hope it happens, but we'll see. Infinity Engine 2.0 would be something to behold.
  • AndrewRogueAndrewRogue Member Posts: 72
    As I'm sure has been stated so far, attaching the legacy name is quite important for sales/marketing. It is unfortunate but trying to revive a game style that has been dead for 10ish years is kind of difficult, and they basically need every leg up they can get. It might be possible to manage with a new title, but it certainly would not be ideal.
  • DreamDream Member Posts: 52
    Naming it BG:subtitle would be cool, but I still wouldn't like it if they called it BG3 and had it not be involved with charname at all.
  • SamielSamiel Member Posts: 156
    The problem is the problem that's been facing print rpg gamebooks for years. Basically the things that sells are the main rulebooks. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons since it's Advanced 1st Edition is that has been three books, The Player's Handbook, The Dungeon's Master's Guide and the Monster Manual. Sure your Dungeon Master's may go out and purchase a campaign setting (although many just go and write their own), and perhaps individual players may pick up the odd extra book here or there, but in order to remain profitable they have had to try and reinvent the whole thing every few years to get everyone to buy the core books again.

    White Wolf came up against the same problem which is why you had in the scant space of 13 years 3 editions of their World of Darkness titles, first edition, second edition and revised. They also tried to increase the revenues by making each "setting" or supernatural creature a rulebook in and of itself. This does draw ire from fans sometimes, as people do end up resenting having to buy all the books again. Although when I run games myself I use 3.5 rules (and I remember the outcry of a between edition edition!), to be honest 2nd Edition Advanced is still a pretty well done system. I have to say the advantage of later editions is an effort to streamline and simplify so you don't need a degree in maths to make things work.

    As far as settings go Wizards wants to promote new ones like Eberron, and will always do revamp campaign settings that have been very popular like The Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and such, but a lot of really really interesting settings have fallen by the wayside unfortunately.
  • drawnacroldrawnacrol Member Posts: 253
    I hope they next game takes place in Waterdeep, bloodstone lands or maybe even in Thay, something far away from BG and IWD.
    MoomintrollDJKajuruAvenger_teambgFluid29
Sign In or Register to comment.