kanisatha

Larian and Beamdog have both confirmed they are not involved. This is what I wrote in another forum as my personal take: It won't be a prequel, nor will it be a direct continuation from where ToB left off. It will follow Realms canon involving events in the city of Baldur's Gate in the 5e timeline. The "Murder in Baldur's Gate" 5e PnP game module could very well even be the jump-off point for the game. "Adrian Abdel" and other canon characters from the old games (including of course Minsc) may be featured in the backstory for the game, but the game will have nothing to do with any of those characters. It will be a completely new story with completely new characters, but because it will be set in the city of Baldur's Gate WotC will claim it justifies the labeling of the game as BG3 (or perhaps "BGNext" in today's WotC-speak). There is precisely zero chance that WotC allows a new Forgotten Realms game to be made that is not set in the current 5e timeline. ZERO. They are extremely happy with how things have turned out with 5e and where the D&D franchise is at the present time. 5e is by far the best-selling D&D edition of all-time, and the new PnP game modules WotC has been cranking out on a frantic pace in the past several years have actually generally been very well received. Why would they not capitalize on all of that newfound enthusiasm for D&D? The target audience for a new BG game would NOT be old-timer fans of the original BG games. The target audience would be the literally millions of NEW D&D fans WotC has managed to generate in recent years for whom the old BG games are a quaint anachronism. BG3 will be open world. It will likely be third person, definitely not isometric. It may be party-based, but only because it will also be co-op/multiplayer. It will be AAA. Why? Because these are the game elements that the current D&DNext generation of gamers will want. And WotC will be looking to sell millions of copies of the game, not just a few hundred thousand copies along the lines of the IE EEs or even games like PoE or Pathfinder or D:OS. That's why I feel CDPR is the odds-on likely candidate for the studio working on BG3. They have recently announced that they are, in fact, working on a new AAA RPG game that is not from the Witcher franchise. And Witcher 3's record of 35 million copies sold worldwide has got to be super-attractive to WotC. The game being AAA, along with it being set in the current 5e canon timeline, are the two things I feel extremely confident that WotC will insist on. If you've followed, as I have done very closely, WotC's statements and actions in the past couple of years (since the release of D&DNext) you can't miss that they badly want "big" things from their D&D franchise - big screen D&D movies and AAA video games.

Surprised nobody's yet commented on this story in these forums: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-is-reportedly-in-development-by-an-unknown-studio-rpg-news-brian-fargo https://www.rpgsite.net/news/7843-report-brian-fargo-may-be-working-on-baldur-s-gate-3 Personally, my money is on CDPR as the studio working on this, assuming such a project does exist. They recently dropped hints on what they have in line to follow Cyberpunk 2077, saying effectively that their next project is a AAA RPG not involving the Witcher franchise.

Why is the game developer spending any time on a walkthrough? Assuming you are right here, I find this quite baffling. I thought they just made the game, and others played it. If someone out there wanted to do a walkthrough, they could, but I don't see why. (Isn't using a walkthrough the best possible way to ruin your game? Like, voluntarily giving the joy of discovery to other people, not having any yourself?) It was a KS add-on you could buy. I agree it's not the best use of their time, especially given they're a very small team, but it also means doing crowdfunding was also something they were learning on the fly. I think it is honorable that they are sticking with all their KS promises, even the ones that are not quite ideal.

Too hard for a lot of people. They go off the main quest and encounter something that's too difficult. Similar to Baldur's Gate. Go off the main quest and you might find yourself encountering a basilisk, get turned to stone and then complain on Steam that the difficulty is too hard and all over the place. Yup. Exactly. For that particular situation apparently they will now add in a warning to players about the difficulty of that quest and also gift some items to the party to help out in the combat.

Guys, a few things from over at the Owlcat forums: They're aware of the difficulty spikes issue and will address it in a hot fix very soon. Basically, they don't want to lower difficulty overall, but do agree that getting routinely killed in an encounter within the tutorial is a bit much. I think they also said something about giving players a bit more time to finish Act 1. Addressing issues with some KS backers not getting their appropriate in-game rewards. The detailed digital walk-through is behind schedule so they will release what they have now, which only goes through chapter 3, and release the whole thing later when it gets done. Additional playable races and classes are the primary thing they expect to include in expansions/DLCs. Seems like issues that should be expected with a very small company doing its first big game project. Keeping this context in mind, I feel they've done an incredibly amazing job with this game so far. I for one am more than happy to cut them some slack and give them some time to fix up whatever needs fixin'. I am so excited not only for this game but for the prospect of a stream of additional games from them in the future that will scratch my D&D itch, given that we're very unlikely to see an actual D&D crpg any time soon.

Well if that's the only way to save the game then I may never play the game, because I am a very casual player who loves having (and needs to have) lots of saves including quicksaves. I think I may have wasted my money in backing this game.

My biggest gripe since it is the one thing they can probably not patch is the saving system. While out questing you're essentially running across one time saving pillars in the world you can either rub for saving the game once or getting experience. It adds a certain element of dread to the game of course, but the systme is ridiculous considering one can't skip cutscenes and might lose an hour worth of progress to a technical issue. I was under the impression that following pushback on their forums when this was initially announced they made saving easier at least on lower difficulty levels. Is this not correct?

The actual game isn't bad. It's just that the program actively conspires against you playing it. The loading times that make Pillars pale in comparison, framerate drops, invisible icons in the inventory, skill points that appear placed but aren't, quest and item text that's barely readable due to terrible UI scaling, graphics and resolution settings that simply don't work, oh and the language setting that automatically resets every time you turn the game on. Yep. Those are bad. REALLY bad. Seriously?! Damn, that really sucks. I backed the game and downloaded it yesterday, but haven't played it since I don't play a new game right away. You'd think they would've learned from all the heat they took with the launch of T:ToN, yet this seems even worse. And they took so very long to work on the game too!

I think Fargo retiring might be the best thing that can happen to inXile at this point.

The only thing people need protecting from is governments. It is the height of patronizing arrogance to be telling people what is best for them. I hope a whole bunch of corporations simply stop doing business in these countries and the home countries of those corporations retaliate by counter-banning business originating from these countries.

On this I see it exactly the opposite way. You don't sell when you're on the ropes (if this is an option) because then you have no bargaining leverage whatsoever. You sell when you're at a high-point, because that's when you have leverage to get the most return.

This story has now been picked up by a couple of online sources: https://www.thenerdmag.com/obsidian-entertainment-might-be-acquired-by-microsoft-according-to-a-letter-of-intent/ https://gamestechica.com/2018/08/08/obsidian-entertainment-letter-of-intent-for-an-acquisition-by-microsoft-leaked/ We know Feargus has been openly saying for some time now that he wants to retire. So this story may actually turn out to be true. MS has deep pockets so the owners of Obsidian may see this as a great opportunity to cash out big time. And MS/Xbox could really use an infusion of quality RPGs into their stable of games.

My sentiments exactly. For years now the one thing that's been the foundation of any discussion about BG2 has been that it's a wizard-centric game, and many uber-fans of BG2 have oft stated that the main reason they love BG2 so much is precisely because it is so extremely wizard-centric. So, yeah, people are of course free to argue otherwise, but I have no interest in engaging with any such arguments because to me that feels like arguing with someone who claims the sun orbits the earth.

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was. Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too. That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same. Uh right. You actually played Eternity at some point? You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all? Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard. But Eternity, way more wizard focused. Yeah. Exactly. I do always take Aloth with me because I like the character and he's my high mechanics guy, but I never cast spells with him. I always play PoE with virtually no spellcasting and don't bother taking the druid or priest companions with me.

Why? I'm honestly curious and would love to hear your opinion. In my view, BG1 is utter rubbish, because 1) Dialogue options are extremely limited and badly written (no humour, no spark, no consistency, very often no opportunity to say anything sensible). 2) There is far too much aimless wandering around huge maps with almost nothing on them. (There is none of this in BG2, and very little of it in any subsequent CRPGs -- clearly, game developers took notice of this blunder.) 3) The story is all over the place, and while it's not exactly illogical or incoherent, it is not well-written either. 4) There are far too many foolish insta-death opportunities, with basilisks and so on. This is just bad writing, and this was a feature that was rightly removed from essentially all subsequent CRPGs. 5) None of the NPCs are interesting or well-written. Some fair points, but unlike you I don't take points away from BG1 and give points to BG2 for any of these kinds of issues because BG2 got the benefit of being able to "learn" from BG1 which BG1 did not get to have. The main issues for me are that I hate playing in a high level game with high level characters and instead absolutely love starting out as a lowly 1st level character stepping out into a big bad world full of things that can end you quickly if you're not careful. I just love that feeling, in contrast with a lot of people who love the feeling of being super-powerful which for me is just meh and boring. I also love exploring open wilderness area versus wading through urban areas, and while I agree that some of the areas in BG1 are too empty I still prefer wandering around in them than many of the BG2 areas. As for better characters and dialog, I really never quite saw BG2 as being particularly better in those regards than BG1. But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game, with almost all battles and all major bosses being (super-powerful) wizards and the best party for the player being a spellcaster-based party. As someone who can't stand spellcaster characters and spellcasting, especially in the context of 2nd edition rules and game mechanics, and who strongly prefers melee characters, BG2 was a tedious chore to get through. And ironically, if you read 2nd edition Forgotten Realms novels, you find that wizards were not that super-powerful and melee characters could often best them even in one-on-one combat, so where did this 'the world revolves around wizards' mentality come from?

By the same coin you can take the entire set of skills of any of the fighter classes and compare them to BG2 and say BG2 doesn't hold a candle to Deadfire. Arguably that's an even more important case since it distributes the complexity and micromanaging more towards all classes and thus all characters, and thus in practice non-caster types are made into active roles opposite to the usual auto-attack bots that they are in the IE games. Even if the depth of the wizard/mage is reduced (I don't see how it is, but let's pretend it is so), it is pretty clearly made up for in other areas. Not sure I agree that this is good though. Spamming the same set of buff + knockdown type skills (just for an example) isn't adding interesting depth. It's an illusion of depth and ultimately more tedious combat. I found myself doing the same thing with Eder roughly every battle in Deadfire, and it was effective, considering I've had zero wipes. But, from a tactical standpoint, it's not any different than "auto-attack bot", it's just more tedious because it requires more clicking. You're not making interesting decisions with those skills. I'll add the interrupt mechanics and fighters' effectiveness at that is substantially more interesting in the BG games. Giving them a role beyond just tank + hit. I've never understood this push by developers and some fans that all the classes need to have actives skills as cool as the mages and priests. You're controlling at least 5-6 units in every combat. I don't want all my units to play the same way. That actually strips strategic depth from the combat. Going back and doing my first run at BG in years, it's striking how much faster and more deadly combat is when compared to Pillars and Deadfire. In Pillars, the weaker status effects and bullet-sponge nature of enemies and your own PC's has created a combat that really drags by contrast. It absolutely matters if you're not someone who only has an interest in playing a spellcaster. Yes fighters and other melee classes should have active abilities because playing wizards and priests is stupid and boring imo. So thank you Obsidian for making a game where, unlike 2e AD&D, playing melee classes is a viable and fun option. Oh, and BG2 is not all it's cracked up to be. Even BG1 is a better game than BG2.

As an older gamer who was very active on the old Black Isle forums, I vaguely recall that the IwD2 base game itself only barely made it into our hands. There was even some brief talk of canceling that game before its release because of the financial woes of the studio. So I highly doubt there ever were any concrete plans for an expansion beyond the usual discussions that would have happened during the base game's development.

I would agree, except that they've already made many hints that this game (Project Indiana) is a AAA-like big budget, open world, multi-platform game, so I just don't see it not being at least DAI-like 3rd person. It is sure to have all those features that will make it a hit on consoles first and foremost, so 3rd person with a party of at least four is the most I can hope for.

I feel sorry for Josh. I think he's doing a great job but he's taking these things too personal. He should just stay clear of it, cause there will always be people complaining about what you have created. Doesn't matter how clear or unclear you've been about things, people will bash away regardless. Hope he takes a break and comes back doing new great stuff. I remember this same situation on the old Black Isle forums way back when. I imagine that's why he doesn't show up on these forums. A pity, because I choose to keep my online footprint to a bare minimum and so am not going to go create accounts in all these other places. Whether I agreed or disagreed with him I always found his ideas to be very interesting.

Interesting. But party-based and 3rd person are not mutually exclusive, are they? NwN2 sorta' did that. I really have no issue with 3rd person or some other non-isometric perspective (though my preference is iso), but not being party-based is the deal-breaker for me, hence my dislike of the Elder Scrolls games and lack of enthusiasm for The Witcher 3 (even though I am aware that game is very highly regarded).

As a related side question, are there sci-fi RPGs available that don't use energy weapons (i.e guns, lasers and the like)? I am very interested in the idea of an Obsidian sci-fi RPG, but I really hate the gameplay mechanics of energy weapons and that's why I end up only playing fantasy themed RPGs.

I just want one QoL improvement: please give me a UI on our ship where I can simultaneously access the inventories and paperdolls of all of my companions and not just those in my current party. PLEASE?!

I'll add a little fuel to the fire by saying I'm one of those people who doesn't consider BG2 to be that great, and have always much preferred BG1 to BG2. I agree with your point. Rose-tinted BG nostalgia is the biggest threat to this awesome CRPG renaissance.

I backed Kingmaker (as I did Deadfire). It's shaped up to be a very good game as best as I can tell. Don't at all understand why one would wish to pit one game against another. By that logic nobody should've made another fantasy RPG since Baldur's Gate and we all should be replaying BG for the two millionth time. Btw, I also do not understand the "it's a small studio I've not heard of so I don't have any expectations that their game will be good" mentality. Many big, well-established studios have deeply disappointed me with their games. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I for one am very glad that gamers back in the late '90s didn't write off the games made by nobody's-ever-heard-of studios by the names of Bioware and Black Isle.

Well, regardless, we are in for changes in scenery soon anyways since the Project Indiana game is very likely to be post-apocalyptic/sci-fi (Obsidian's own Fallout-inspired franchise?), followed by whatever game Sawyer works on next which will definitely not be fantasy per his own expressed preference.