I also don't have a "Problem" with them going 3D, unless that becomes the main focus to the exclusion of good game play, good story and loads of options. Basically anything that detracts from it being a good successor to BG would be a bad thing in my book.
From what devs have said BG3 would not use the Infinity engine (that is certain); and if it ever does get made it would likely be set in the current time period for the Forgotten Realms using the current DnD ruleset at that time. So that would be over a century in the future from the BG saga's events, and probably post-Sundering, using DnD Next. As such it can only be about the legacy of the BG saga. But note that
I have seen loads of speculation on this topic but nothing "Official" saying that any new project would 'Definitely' be sans the Infinity engine. I'd appreciate a link if you have one handy. I'm not doubting, merely inquiring...
And I'm having trouble finding it now, but there was a very definitive statement once made by either Philip Diagle, Trent Oster, or Nathan that basically explained why they would build a new engine from the ground up--mainly because the Infinity Engine is so unwieldy. Ir referenced the missing artwork as a basically insurmountable hurdle (at least making it so impractical as to put it out the realm of doability). It was shortly after BGEE was released.
...5th edition is called Dungeons and Dragons Next.
...HEY GUYS! I THINK I KNOW WHAT SYSTEM BG3 WILL USE!
Regardless, I feel BG3 is still a terrible idea.
"[Brand/Title] Next" is basically just the new hot way of titling project names. In the case of "BG3" I figure it is also because they don't want to call it BG3 as they probably don't want to say (or haven't even decided yet) how much connection it would have to BG - so they choose to invoke a feeling of "in the spirit of BG" instead.
I am relatively sure that (if their next project ends up being a DnD game) it will be a 5th Ed game, though. Regardless.
If the next Overhaul project is D&D licenced I have a hard time believing that WoTC would let them use anything but the latest ruleset. This has always been the approach in the past. Computer Games are an introduction to and advertisement for the PnP ruleset.
The main reason the Infinity Engine was ruled out for BG3, as I now recall from developer responses way back when, was the lost 3D artwork! They'd have to remodel all the 3D artwork because it was all lost for the original game. And the rationale went that given that they'd have to do that, they''d much prefer to build the engine from the ground up. And also because IE is such a bear to work with to begin with. I distinctly remember that coming from a dev.
@Lemernis - No, that's why they couldn't upgrade BGEEs graphics. If they made a new game they could (and I certainly hope they would) obviously make new assets from the ground up.
The reason they don't want to use the Infinity Engine is otherwise as you say though, as far as I know. It is severely outdated and too bothersome.
@scriver What I'm recalling was said in the post that I now can't find (frustrating!), was that fact was also cited as a reason why it would be highly impractical to use IE for BG3. I.e., it applied to both the Enhanced Editions and the prospective engine for BG3.
I'm guessing I'm not alone in saying a new engine would really lessen my interest. I'd never say never; but, if they do a new engine and a new rule set I'm VERY unlikely to be interested.
@atcDave But if what they make is a game that is very much like the BG series in at least several critical aspects--i.e., 2D isometric top-down, and a ruleset that gives us character creation and combat very much like the BG series--and is rendered in HD, would that still be acceptable?
I have to say, though, that perhaps a big part of why BG works as well as it does is that its lack of hi def has our imagination fill in the gaps.
I have no problem with higher definitions or the use of 3D. Much of Baldur's Gate was originally rendered in 3D and then turned into 2D anyway, from what I understand. The top-down mode in Dragon Age: Origins was the right general direction but a but fiddly. Oldschool gameplay doesn't necessarily mean primitive visuals.
Actually, what I would love to see is a game that is incredibly close in appearance to BG that uses gorgeously painted backgrounds, but is simply in much higher resolution. Like what we were all hoping for with the EEs before we learned that the source 3D artwork was lost. And keep it fixed perspective but zoomable, like the EEs.
So imagine the Enhanced Editions with faces on the characters, and much higher definition and detail in general, and greater zoom capability... and set within a sort of richly painted world that doesn't attempt to simulate reality (i.e., imho, 3D games ironically draw attention to the fact that the game is a simulation of reality). And you could zoom in pretty darn close... so I guess there would have to be some life to the faces, i.e., facial expressions that match the circumstances.
We've drifted pretty far from the original topic (understandably, imo). I can split off the discussion about game engine for BG3 if people like. Or someone can start a new thread about it. Or we can return to the OP's question about a brand new game's setting after even a possible BG3.
@Dazzu, I get you. A module maker would be good. However the Devs have said that they're using community-developed tools for the current BG:EE & BG2:EE stuff (DLTCEP, I think). Given the limitations of the Infinity Engine it seems likely that they'll head in a new direction rather than make better tools for the existing engine. As it is, Overhaul's current emphasis is on getting the Android version of both EEs ready, we've not heard much other news recently.
I would personally love to see a combination of solid engine and game mechanics, great storytelling and a powerful editor. It's my opinion that the greatest strength of the Aurora engine from NWN was the toolset and I never tire of saying so.
@atcDave But if what they make is a game that is very much like the BG series in at least several critical aspects--i.e., 2D isometric top-down, and a ruleset that gives us character creation and combat very much like the BG series--and is rendered in HD, would that still be acceptable?
I have to say, though, that perhaps a big part of why BG works as well as it does is that its lack of hi def has our imagination fill in the gaps.
Well as I said, I would never say never. But as an old-school PNP/AD&D guy, the 2E rule set was a huge selling point for me in the first place. So the further they stray from that the harder they will have to work at getting my attention.
A similar, but original 2D isometric would be fine IF it was 2E (the AD&D part matters more to me than the IE part does).
If they use a new game engine with 4E or Next; well I probably have something else to do that weekend...
I've liked what I've seen of the engines of both Wasteland 2 and whatever Project Eternity is called now. I think both have the spirit of a top down style engine and they look like they've got a great engine with loads of options. I particularly like what little i've read about the conversation engine in Wasteland 2.
like @atcDave - I'm an old school 2E guy. I prefer that rules set to just about any that i've seen. I will ALWAYS play a 2E game. Anything else, they gotta prove it to me that it's any good. Therefore, if a new game came out in new rules, I'd have to do research as opposed to the guaranteed buy that a 2E game would be.
As for where? Just about anywhere where there's loads of wilderness to explore and labyrinthine Dungeons to plunder. I'm not a huge fan of either Dinosaurs or guns/Steam punk in my D&D, so any setting with those would not be on the top of my list (personal preference). But... if it were a good game? Who knows. I just plain don't know enough about the geography of Faerun (and presumably that's where it would be) to be able to pick one spot.
But again, Krynn? That would definitely be an enticement to me.
Hello that ignoramus here again, hopefully asking the questions other people are thinking but not asking...
Some of you seem quite adamant about the next game not being certain versions of the DnD rules. So I ask why? What's changed? Is it still not elves, half-orcs, dwarves etc. running around solving problems with the skills of a cleric, mage, ranger etc.? How far have we gone since the Baldur's Gate system?
@SwordsNotWords - for some of us, we grew up playing the PnP version of 2E and so that is the system we most enjoy. And with BG having been 2E, that just reinforced our love and desire for that system.
In my opinion, 3E brought more generic characters over 2E. Everyone could be anything. Everyone could hide in shadows or pick locks. Everyone could cast spells to one degree or another. Races were less distinct due to being able to play as any class. And "Balance" PvP was a much greater focus of the rules set than it was in 2E. Finally, the point buy system and flat/regulated stats systems plus the adding to stats as you grew, 'Changed' the way we looked at things like Max Strength etc... For good or bad, these were all departures from 2E.
There were other changes as well, but those are the ones that struck me the most.
Now, I've spent almost as many hours playing NWN/NWN2 as I have playing BG. I like em both. One is 2E, the other (two) 3E. I prefer 2E. This isn't a value judgement on either system, it's a personal preference.
What I've read on 4E was not positive, although several other forum members have been quite positive about them. I'd have to play it in order to judge properly. Same with 5E, although my main concern there isn't anything negative that I've read, but more that "if it ain't broke, why do you feel a need to fix it?" It's like saying you never forget your first love and compare everything to that. For me, my first love is and always will be 2E. anything else needs to be compared to that.
I know that 3E and 3.5E added a lot of character customisation options by way of feats, and rolled a lot of class skills like stealth into a more generic skill system that could be used by anyone. So a Paladin could choose to put points in stealth, but a Rogue or Ranger will be better at it.
I quite like the differentiation between characters that the feat system offers. Second Edition (Like Baldur's Gate) tends to point a character down a single path once they have been created. Two fighters with the same race/stats/alignment at the same level will be identical in Baldur's Gate apart from their weapon proficiencies. Later Editions have feats that you choose at various levels that could make your fighter more tanky, or you could choose a different set of feats and become a proficient dual-wielder, more mobile in combat or half a dozen other options. Two characters created equally could go in different directions with time.
3E and 3.5E also allow you to take multiclass levels of just about anything at any time. While this allows a lot of flexibility it's ripe for abuse as well. "Dipping" into a class for 1-2 levels to get powerful key abilities was easy.
One of the drawbacks of more recent systems is that as @the_spyder says, "Everyone could be anything". So you could have a Dwarf Mage, despite years of history and lore about Dwarves being sceptical of magic. There also seems to be a departure from established fantasy ideas into more niche D&D concepts. Reading around online I bump into player characters who are Genasi, Warforged or Draco-Elves. Everyone knows vaguely what an Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling or Human is, and too much additional content can dilute your adventures with irrelevant information.
I have played and enjoyed games that were other than AD&D. And I've played 3E and 3.5E both as CRPGs and PNP, I've played 4E in PNP only. Not a lot mind you. But I would say the game, the characters and the story ultimately matter more than the rules set. But as Spyder said, I'm an old timer, I started on 1E (and Basic D&D, yet another different system...). For those who don't know, 1E and 2E are pretty similar (both are considered AD&D, but 2E is sort of a polishing up of the original concept). But AD$D will always be my first love. It's the game I still run myself, it's the game that just seems right to me; so anything with those rules will always get my attention. I MIGHT be sold on something completely different, AD&D will interest me every time.
@SwordsNotWords The other consideration, besides ruleset preferences, is the lore one. A new BG III game would likely not only be run with 5th edition rules, but would also use the 5th edition setting-which is to Forgotten Realms what the Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson novels are to the 'Dune' universe IMO.
Comments
Think UA or Blades of Avernum/Exile.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself with nothing getting done?
http://web.archive.org/web/20120907164519/http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/overhaul-games-confirmed-the-development-of-new-engine-for-baldurs-gate-3/
and
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/41198 oops though it was in that one, but guess not
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/6331/bg3-using-infinity-engine/p1
And I'm having trouble finding it now, but there was a very definitive statement once made by either Philip Diagle, Trent Oster, or Nathan that basically explained why they would build a new engine from the ground up--mainly because the Infinity Engine is so unwieldy. Ir referenced the missing artwork as a basically insurmountable hurdle (at least making it so impractical as to put it out the realm of doability). It was shortly after BGEE was released.
...5th edition is called Dungeons and Dragons Next.
...HEY GUYS! I THINK I KNOW WHAT SYSTEM BG3 WILL USE!
Regardless, I feel BG3 is still a terrible idea.
I am relatively sure that (if their next project ends up being a DnD game) it will be a 5th Ed game, though. Regardless.
The reason they don't want to use the Infinity Engine is otherwise as you say though, as far as I know. It is severely outdated and too bothersome.
I have to say, though, that perhaps a big part of why BG works as well as it does is that its lack of hi def has our imagination fill in the gaps.
So imagine the Enhanced Editions with faces on the characters, and much higher definition and detail in general, and greater zoom capability... and set within a sort of richly painted world that doesn't attempt to simulate reality (i.e., imho, 3D games ironically draw attention to the fact that the game is a simulation of reality). And you could zoom in pretty darn close... so I guess there would have to be some life to the faces, i.e., facial expressions that match the circumstances.
I'll just keep repeating until I'm heard.
I would personally love to see a combination of solid engine and game mechanics, great storytelling and a powerful editor. It's my opinion that the greatest strength of the Aurora engine from NWN was the toolset and I never tire of saying so.
A similar, but original 2D isometric would be fine IF it was 2E (the AD&D part matters more to me than the IE part does).
If they use a new game engine with 4E or Next; well I probably have something else to do that weekend...
like @atcDave - I'm an old school 2E guy. I prefer that rules set to just about any that i've seen. I will ALWAYS play a 2E game. Anything else, they gotta prove it to me that it's any good. Therefore, if a new game came out in new rules, I'd have to do research as opposed to the guaranteed buy that a 2E game would be.
As for where? Just about anywhere where there's loads of wilderness to explore and labyrinthine Dungeons to plunder. I'm not a huge fan of either Dinosaurs or guns/Steam punk in my D&D, so any setting with those would not be on the top of my list (personal preference). But... if it were a good game? Who knows. I just plain don't know enough about the geography of Faerun (and presumably that's where it would be) to be able to pick one spot.
But again, Krynn? That would definitely be an enticement to me.
Some of you seem quite adamant about the next game not being certain versions of the DnD rules. So I ask why? What's changed? Is it still not elves, half-orcs, dwarves etc. running around solving problems with the skills of a cleric, mage, ranger etc.? How far have we gone since the Baldur's Gate system?
In my opinion, 3E brought more generic characters over 2E. Everyone could be anything. Everyone could hide in shadows or pick locks. Everyone could cast spells to one degree or another. Races were less distinct due to being able to play as any class. And "Balance" PvP was a much greater focus of the rules set than it was in 2E. Finally, the point buy system and flat/regulated stats systems plus the adding to stats as you grew, 'Changed' the way we looked at things like Max Strength etc... For good or bad, these were all departures from 2E.
There were other changes as well, but those are the ones that struck me the most.
Now, I've spent almost as many hours playing NWN/NWN2 as I have playing BG. I like em both. One is 2E, the other (two) 3E. I prefer 2E. This isn't a value judgement on either system, it's a personal preference.
What I've read on 4E was not positive, although several other forum members have been quite positive about them. I'd have to play it in order to judge properly. Same with 5E, although my main concern there isn't anything negative that I've read, but more that "if it ain't broke, why do you feel a need to fix it?" It's like saying you never forget your first love and compare everything to that. For me, my first love is and always will be 2E. anything else needs to be compared to that.
I quite like the differentiation between characters that the feat system offers. Second Edition (Like Baldur's Gate) tends to point a character down a single path once they have been created. Two fighters with the same race/stats/alignment at the same level will be identical in Baldur's Gate apart from their weapon proficiencies. Later Editions have feats that you choose at various levels that could make your fighter more tanky, or you could choose a different set of feats and become a proficient dual-wielder, more mobile in combat or half a dozen other options. Two characters created equally could go in different directions with time.
3E and 3.5E also allow you to take multiclass levels of just about anything at any time. While this allows a lot of flexibility it's ripe for abuse as well. "Dipping" into a class for 1-2 levels to get powerful key abilities was easy.
One of the drawbacks of more recent systems is that as @the_spyder says, "Everyone could be anything". So you could have a Dwarf Mage, despite years of history and lore about Dwarves being sceptical of magic. There also seems to be a departure from established fantasy ideas into more niche D&D concepts. Reading around online I bump into player characters who are Genasi, Warforged or Draco-Elves. Everyone knows vaguely what an Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling or Human is, and too much additional content can dilute your adventures with irrelevant information.
But as Spyder said, I'm an old timer, I started on 1E (and Basic D&D, yet another different system...). For those who don't know, 1E and 2E are pretty similar (both are considered AD&D, but 2E is sort of a polishing up of the original concept). But AD$D will always be my first love. It's the game I still run myself, it's the game that just seems right to me; so anything with those rules will always get my attention. I MIGHT be sold on something completely different, AD&D will interest me every time.