Baldur's Gate 3?

[SonicMage117]

To me it would be awesome to have all new characters but be able to go to an inn and run into say, a cameo of Minsc and Boo or go to a castle and run into Imoen or things like that. Just to add that level of detail for us geezers but still be fresh enough for a new aspect on a D&D game. I need me easter eggs like a pot o'gold!

Edited October 9, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Wormerine]

This has 'cash grab' written all over it. Make a new DnD game - great, make it big budget - great, but why in the name of Gorion call it Baldur's Gate Three?

It is called like that, because we talk about it now. Would we have such a lengthy, passionate discussion, if it was just a game in D&D setting? IPs are a powerful thing. Whatever this BG3 will be, I hope it will be decent, preferably seperate from Bhaalspawn saga. But whenever it will be good or bad, attaching it to beloved series does force me to be somewhat intrigued: if I will like it, hate it, or be indifferent about it remains to be seen, but I will keep my eye for it. And that why it is Baldurs Gate3.

[Heathsunderer]

To me it would be awesome to have all new characters but be able to go to an inn and run into say, a cameo of Minsc and Boo or go to a castle and run into Imoen or things like that. Just to add that level of detail for us geezers but still be fresh enough for a new aspect on a D&D game. I need me easter eggs like a pot o'gold!

If I recall, the Bhaalspawn depending on your choices in the game can have a baby with either the drow or the avari'el mage, although the former only comes up in the ending. Seems much easier to weld into a potential sequel's story than Duke Abdel or someone dying in a battle and half the original cast having been eaten alive. I pretend the books were never written.

[Wormerine]

You just need right, passionate people for the job. But what are the real chances that you will recieve a cynical, soulless cashgrab instead?

I dunno. Make a roll with a disadvantage.

[SonicMage117]

I pretend the books were never written.

I recommend avoiding the horrid D&D movies, such as:

https://youtu.be/3SnA2rv4ros

 

Always find it strange whenever I talk to someone that says they like the D&D movies but didn't like the Mortal Kombat ones lol (basically the same thing in a different package).

[aksrasjel]

 

You just need right, passionate people for the job. But what are the real chances that you will recieve a cynical, soulless cashgrab instead?

I dunno. Make a roll with a disadvantage.

17 and natural 1. As a diviner my portent dice are 2 and 3 respectively. No proficiency bonus. Now what?

[Heathsunderer]

 

I pretend the books were never written.

I recommend avoiding the horrid D&D movies, such as:

 

Always find it strange whenever I talk to someone that says they like the D&D movies but didn't like the Mortal Kombat ones lol (basically the same thing in a different package).

 

Huh, I think there was a re-run of this movie on local TV just the other day. Didn't hang around since I don't watch any. 

EDIT: I would definitely be down for some D&D animation à la Paul Johnson (Otaking) though. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Heathsunderer

[SonicMage117]

That would be SWEET!

[daven]

BG3 has no reason to exist and I don't trust any of these people to be able to make anything the calibre of BG2.

[SonicMage117]

BG3 has no reason to exist and I don't trust any of these people to be able to make anything the calibre of BG2.

Who are the people exactly and why aren't they worthy of our trust?

 

Aside from that, if this was 2001 or 2002 and Bioware/MumboJumbo was developing it, you wouldn't be saying "It has no reason to exist" You'd pre-order it without any hesitation lol Don't deny it

 

 

p.s

I've missed you, fellow raggae/ska brother! Daven the dwarf hehee

Edited October 9, 2018 by SonicMage117

[bigbazoopa]

Surely bg3 wont be first person crap like witcher?

 

It will be a crpg like bg2 . Why would they call it Baldurs gate if it wasnt

[SonicMage117]

Surely bg3 wont be first person crap like witcher?

 

It will be a crpg like bg2 . Why would they call it Baldurs gate if it wasnt

None of the Witcher games are first person, nor are they "crap" lol

 

Perhaps you didn't know so I'm going to teach you da wey....

 

 

 

 

IE games are Infinity Engine games. Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment were are Infinity Engine games and Infinity Engine games were all at a third person Isometric angle. Crpg isn't bound to isometric angle, for example Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Kotor 1&2, VTM: Redemption and Dragon Age games are technically all Crpg but with the perspective closer to The Witcher series.

 

First person perspective is where you see out of the person's eyes, like Call Of Duty.

 

But onwards to answer your question, it can be closer third person like the Witcher and still be called Baldurs Gate because it's not impossible to retain the atmosphere and overall world feeling from camera placement. Thinking otherwise is quite shallow, especially when there are next to no details of the game.

 

It's time that we accept change and not base quality on preference, once we get past that, we can teach old dogs new tricks and maybe get a bit more out of life

Edited October 9, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Tanthalas]

 

Who ranted this crap?

Hmmm... You must be new here.

 

Anyway, I did, what's the problem? What was wrong with what I said or do you simply not like it because you don't agree with it?

I can't really see a game called Baldur's Gate 3 being that in anything but name. I mean, the story finished already at the end of ToB.

 

This doesn't sound like a very interesting project. Of course, if the game ever comes out, it could be the best ever, but on the face of it, I'm not looking forward to it. BG is done already. It was superb, but it's done.

You and a few others have stated this so you are not alone but the irony and hypocrisy in this statement lies in the fact that none of you complain about Tales Of games having no relation, or Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, Fallout or Ys. While some of those are Jrpg, the subject to comparison remains the same so I'd like someone to enlighten me how having no relation calls for the need to be called another name other than Baldurs Gate III or thereby fails to qualify it when everyone here plays other franchises that do this very thing and it's never bothered them before... Not that we know for sure it's going to be called BG3 anyway.

 

I never played Fallout or Y's, and I only played Oblivion and Skyrim.

 

But comparing BG3 having nothing to do with BG1&2, with the FF and Tales series doesn't make much sense.

 

From the very start, each FF game never had any story connection to the previous one, and when they did, they were called FFX-2, FFXIII-2, FFXII: Revenant Wings, etc. I haven't played all Tales games either, but the only ones I played with a connected story were Tales of Berseria 1 & 2. This is not the case for Baldur's Gate, where from the onset the two games in the series were deeply connected by their stories. Sure, a BG3 could have some connection to BG1&2, but CHARNAME's story ended 20 years ago, just leave it be.

 

And then when you add that the game you advocate for (an open-world ARPG) doesn't even have similar gameplay, for Pete's sake, if you want to call the game BG, at least give it a subtitle like the Dark Alliance games.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Tanthalas

[SonicMage117]

I never played Fallout or Y's, and I only played Oblivion and Skyrim.

 

But comparing BG3 having nothing to do with BG1&2, with the FF and Tales series doesn't make much sense.

 

From the very start, each FF game never had any story connection to the previous one, and when they did, they were called FFX-2, FFXIII-2, FFXII: Revenant Wings, etc. I haven't played all Tales games either, but the only ones I played with a connected story were Tales of Berseria 1 & 2. This is not the case for Baldur's Gate, where from the onset the two games in the series were deeply connected by their stories. Sure, a BG3 could have some connection to BG1&2, but CHARNAME's story ended 20 years ago, just leave it be.

 

And then when you add that the game you advocate for (an open-world ARPG) doesn't even similar gameplay, for Pete's sake, if you want to call the game BG, at least give it a subtitle like the Dark Alliance games.

What shouldn't make sense to you is how people are getting bent out of shape over the possibility of a good BG game being different instead of being positive about it. Like I said we don't even know if it's even gonna be called Baldurs Gate 3? So why is there so much confusion and paranoia among you already?

 

My advocating for the BG game in development being an action-rpg doesn't have to make sense to you, but I don't think that's what it is. I think it's as you said, you don't want it to be called BG3 so hearing someone like me say "I hope it sets itself apart" triggers people like you - though we just don't even know anything about the game. I like when devs and publishers take risk so that's why I want it to be called BG3 and be completely different. Aside from that, we're in a different generation so taking advantage of refined mechanics, graphics engine, etc in a BG game would be nice to see whether members here choose to admit it or not.

 

I mean, I don't see anything wrong with visiting a familiar world and familiar characters from a new, different perspective. All that said, I'll say it agin, it likely won't even be called BG3 since they know how whiney the community is. Also, if it's called BG3 and it's good then it could bring about more fanbase for the series as a whole. You know, people might find themselves interested enoughto say "I wana play the first 2 games and see what this is really all about, what I've missed". Members here just sound pretty selfish and a bit entitled to what they want and what won't be. The constant attitude "Oh we already know it won't be as good as the REAL Baldurs Gate games" speaks for itself. That's not a healthy way to live life... even if most members were to possess that same attitude, just wouldn't make them right - as yet again, we know nothing about the game and who's developing it.

 

About my comparison with Jrpgs and Arpgs being disconnected, I'm not sure how those comparisons to Crpgs would be invalid. Point was that a franchise doesn't have to comtinue to carry on a name with a numeral, this goes for any entertainment mediun really. Just because the first two BG games connected, doesn't mean the rest of the franchise is forced or expected to. We as fans have a superstitious code that we see things as, but reality is that there was never such a law or code to how developers did this. And there will never be, no matter how much we want that. So why are we excluding Baldurs Gate from all other games as if it was any different?

 

And as such, though my points are of sound contest, what I say is probably deemed irrelevant by some of the members here, which I could care less. I mean it's an Internet forum, so truth be told, anything unliked is deemed irrelevant or ehat have you. I'm completely fine with that

Edited October 9, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Tanthalas]

People being upset at the possiblity of BG3 being very different to the original series, to the point that they won't even be in the same genre, doesn't make sense to you. But being upset that not everyone is excited at the possibility of getting a BG3 that has little to do with the originals, both plot and gameplay wise, does?

 

You apparently don't like BG's gameplay anymore, but it's not that surprising that people keep loving the genre and want to see more of it.

 

As for the comparison to FF and Tales of, I already pointed out why the comparison is flawed. The FF series (not sure about the earlier Tales of) established itself as a series that does not have interconnected games from the very beginning. Such is not the case with BG. BG1 and 2 are intimately linked to each other, so fan expectations of a BG3 would be that it would keep to this.

[SonicMage117]

People being upset at the possiblity of BG3 being very different to the original series, to the point that they won't even be in the same genre, doesn't make sense to you. But being upset that not everyone is excited at the possibility of getting a BG3 that has little to do with the originals, both plot and gameplay wise, does?

 

You apparently don't like BG's gameplay anymore, but it's not that surprising that people keep loving the genre and want to see more of it.

 

As for the comparison to FF and Tales of, I already pointed out why the comparison is flawed. The FF series (not sure about the earlier Tales of) established itself as a series that does not have interconnected games from the very beginning. Such is not the case with BG. BG1 and 2 are intimately linked to each other, so fan expectations of a BG3 would be that it would keep to this.

Hmmm, I don't think you get it...

 

There's a well constructed reason it doesn't make sense to me, as someone else pointed out already in the thread, the very same people complaining about this now played Fallout 3 and New Vegas and didn't complain then. When Bethesda took over the franchise, nobody complained and furthermore, it is the ultimate proof that a genre change, as well as mechanics and perspective change doesn't call for community paranoia. With this experience, you'd figure that people wouldn't be as such lol

 

 

As far your argument about the Jrpg's I mentioned, you're still not getting it because what you're saying simply isn't true. See, the fact that BG1&2 connect doesn't really exactly "establish" as a conmecting franchise since it's only two games or are we going to say that that's an absolute just because we're trying to make a point that doesn't exist.

 

As for Final Fantasy games as being established as non connecting, that's not entirely true either, Final Fantasy franchise has games that connect as well as games that don't, it weaves in and out of this motion at will which make my point even more valid. There's no guideline which states that an established franchise can't go from connected to disconnected.

 

Anyway, my point wasn't if a certain franchises are established as a connected series, but for the fact that games don't need to be connected for players to enjoy. There may a disconnect but it's something very small and shallow to get past especially when there's plenty of franchises that prove that it can work and why communities don't need to worry about such things.

 

I'm not sure why you think I don't love BG's gameplay anymore, I mean, just because I say that it's flawed, a bit overrated and that want this game to be different and take risks, doesn't mean that I don't still love BG 1&2 anymore. Of course they will always have a special place in my heart. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, again you're talking ti someone that sticks up for Beamdog for re-releasing the games for a new generation. I just think the community is acting like Baldurs Gate is a piece of some piece of gold that validates these feelings above other franchises.

[Volourn]

"To play the devil's advocate for 5 seconds. I am surprised nobody brought up Fallout: New Vegas as an argument. You may have heard about the company that made it.
Mechanically, it has nothing to do with FO1 or FO2, but it's very much a proper Fallout 3 game for a lot of fans, myself very much included. And it was a distant sequel to an old franchise.
The catch is - New Vegas was a lightning in a bottle. People that made it were extremely passionate about the franchise and wanted to make the best Fallout they can - unlike Bethesda with their Fallout 3.

So, theoretically, you can make an awesome BG sequel without any of the 'nostalgic' attachments. You just need right, passionate people for the job. But what are the real chances that you will recieve a cynical, soulless cashgrab instead?"

 

I know not everyone likes it, but WL2 is another good example. But, these two are the exceptions to the rule. Just look at BT4 - made by the people who did WL2 - yet it just spits in the face of BT.

 

 

 

I look forward to BG3 as long as it is done in the same spirit. It is why like PF:KM so much despite the many many many many many many many bugs. It is a hoMeage to the BG series.

 

 

Also, again, anyone who claims that the BG series' 'story' is over and there can't be a continuation absolutely have no imagination whatsoever. And, I say, if you lack i9magination, go play some crap game like Twitcher or  Sorrowwine.

 

 

P.S. Beamdog are poopyheads and anyone who likes them are poopyheads. BD doesn't know what the IE games are about. At all. It is why their work on them is pure ****.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 And, I say, if you lack i9magination, go play some crap game like Sorrowwine.

 

 

 

 

Here you go, folks. Sorrowwine, stockphoto stamped and all...

[Vitalis]

"To play the devil's advocate for 5 seconds. I am surprised nobody brought up Fallout: New Vegas as an argument. You may have heard about the company that made it.

Mechanically, it has nothing to do with FO1 or FO2, but it's very much a proper Fallout 3 game for a lot of fans, myself very much included. And it was a distant sequel to an old franchise.

The catch is - New Vegas was a lightning in a bottle. People that made it were extremely passionate about the franchise and wanted to make the best Fallout they can - unlike Bethesda with their Fallout 3.

 

So, theoretically, you can make an awesome BG sequel without any of the 'nostalgic' attachments. You just need right, passionate people for the job. But what are the real chances that you will recieve a cynical, soulless cashgrab instead?"

 

I know not everyone likes it, but WL2 is another good example. But, these two are the exceptions to the rule. Just look at BT4 - made by the people who did WL2 - yet it just spits in the face of BT.

 

 

 

I look forward to BG3 as long as it is done in the same spirit. It is why like PF:KM so much despite the many many many many many many many bugs. It is a hoMeage to the BG series.

 

 

Also, again, anyone who claims that the BG series' 'story' is over and there can't be a continuation absolutely have no imagination whatsoever. And, I say, if you lack i9magination, go play some crap game like Twitcher or Sorrowwine.

 

 

P.S. Beamdog are poopyheads and anyone who likes them are poopyheads. BD doesn't know what the IE games are about. At all. It is why their work on them is pure ****.

5e has Bhaal come back to life irrespective of his spawn surviving.

[LittleRose]

I don't need a Baldur's Gate sequel. That story's been told completely. I'd much rather have another D&D game with six party members. One that stands for itself. Maybe even with another setting. There are so many worlds I have yet to see, as I've never known enough other nerdy people for a pen & paper group.

How about a new Ravenloft or Dark Sun game? Or Spelljammer?

[MotelOK]

I don't need a Baldur's Gate sequel. That story's been told completely. I'd much rather have another D&D game with six party members. One that stands for itself. Maybe even with another setting. There are so many worlds I have yet to see, as I've never known enough other nerdy people for a pen & paper group.

How about a new Ravenloft or Dark Sun game? Or Spelljammer?

Yeah I see no reason to continue the saga of the Bhaalspawn. Maybe they'll grab a minor character from Baldur's Gate and give them their own adventure, I think that would work. But leave the Bhaalspawn alone.

[Volourn]

Lack of imagination continues. For shame. You guys are not  fans of fantasy, rpogs, or imagination if you can't think of even one way to continue the story.

 

 

 

"5e has Bhaal come back to life irrespective of his spawn surviving."

 

There you go. This gives an easy open to continue the Bhaalspawn saga. Bhaal is goinga round 'collecting' his kiddies (by murdering them as the God of Murder do). You play a Bhaalspawn who may or may not know he/she is one... and has to deal with it. early on, you start getting 'visions' and some 'powers' while dealing with some local crisis (or creating it).. and eventually you gotta deal with daddy. Not neccesarily directly since he's a god. Maybe you a priest of a god so it isn't as simple as him outright murdering you but maybe even trying o corrupt you in mysterious ways.

 

Use the 'ol imagination.

 

 

Or simple. BG3 takes place in BG3 and the old Bhaal temple underneath eventually plays into it... Perhaps an Avatar of Bhaal is using it to suck the souls of Bhaalspawn that it somehow draws there.

 

WHO KNOWS.

 

I.M.A.G.I.N.A.T.I.O.N.

 

 

IMAGINE THAT.

[Tigranes]

Actually, forget everything else, this thread is probably a testament to why we shouldn't have a BG3.

 

Really, I don't really care what it's called, any well-designed D&D CRPG will do me just fine. Whether "modern" or "old school" is not particularly relevant - I don't find it particularly mature to get obsessive about how wrong somebody else's opinions are, though gaming and other popular cultures really seem to encourage that.

[Vitalis]

Lack of imagination continues. For shame. You guys are not fans of fantasy, rpogs, or imagination if you can't think of even one way to continue the story.

 

 

 

"5e has Bhaal come back to life irrespective of his spawn surviving."

 

There you go. This gives an easy open to continue the Bhaalspawn saga. Bhaal is goinga round 'collecting' his kiddies (by murdering them as the God of Murder do). You play a Bhaalspawn who may or may not know he/she is one... and has to deal with it. early on, you start getting 'visions' and some 'powers' while dealing with some local crisis (or creating it).. and eventually you gotta deal with daddy. Not neccesarily directly since he's a god. Maybe you a priest of a god so it isn't as simple as him outright murdering you but maybe even trying o corrupt you in mysterious ways.

 

Use the 'ol imagination.

 

 

Or simple. BG3 takes place in BG3 and the old Bhaal temple underneath eventually plays into it... Perhaps an Avatar of Bhaal is using it to suck the souls of Bhaalspawn that it somehow draws there.

 

WHO KNOWS.

 

I.M.A.G.I.N.A.T.I.O.N.

 

 

IMAGINE THAT.

>Insists that we use our imagination

>Proceeds to try to reinvigorate a 160+ year story line neglecting key facts.

 

Bhall's plan of resurrection was to use his children to come back, but he wanted the strongest to survive. Problem being they ended up killing each other this stopping his plans.

 

Meanwhile Bane does the same thing and succeeds, because he actually came back prior to 5e.

 

Bhall would have no children of a reasonable age to **** with, and would have no reason to.

 

There's nothing imaginative about that. It's not like the Forgotten Realms dont have two Gods that have tried to **** over the world for petty reasons...

Edited October 10, 2018 by Vitalis

[SonicMage117]

Actually, forget everything else, this thread is probably a testament to why we shouldn't have a BG3.

 

Really, I don't really care what it's called, any well-designed D&D CRPG will do me just fine. Whether "modern" or "old school" is not particularly relevant - I don't find it particularly mature to get obsessive about how wrong somebody else's opinions are, though gaming and other popular cultures really seem to encourage that.

I'm just grateful that forums don't have any say in the devlopment vision whatsoever. I want a new BG game whether it's a continuation or not, couldn't care less about that. There's things I'd like to see, but even if it turns out the oppisite, I'll still be interested and I'm not gonna whine about it. It's not like they could kill the legacy behind BG 1&2 anyway so, there's really no point in us being negative if the devs want to try something with it. It's as if the nobody here has heard the term "Vote with your wallet" and is trying something more along the lines of "Vote with your comment"

 

Whether people want a new BG or not, they're getting one and whther they want it to be BG3 or not, they're still gonna buy it hehee