Interview with Feargus Urquhart and Ryan Rucinski

[Pop]

I may be mistaken but when Black Isle was shut down, Jefferson was supposedly cancelled wasnt it? Or was the work just continued by Obsidian (considering it was founded by the Black Isle crew)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jefferson was scrapped, along with Van Buren (Fallout 3) when Interplay dissolved Black Isle. The Jefferson incarnation of BG3 is dead dead dead dead dead.

 

Van Buren lives on in my PnP games. Kind of.

 

Neither of the franchises are necessarily dead, though. It took 8 years for Metal Gear to become Metal Gear Solid. Feargus might be overly optimistic with his hope-fostering for a BG3, but he might not be. I doubt he'd clarify for us. Fallout 3 is now a Bethesda property in pre-production. But to most fans, both franchises are effectively dead. Disagreement arises over whether they would be worth resurrection. I say yes, others say no.

 

Be prepared to hear all kinds of "BG has run its course" statements, if the board decides to respond to you in numbers.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Pop

[Volourn]

" but it was a very pure RPG (NWN doesn't beat BG to that "

 

Wrong.

[Weiser_Cain]

2.0 is awful

this site is silly with the no worky with zoomy texty

[Pop]

2.0 is awful

this site is silly with the no worky with zoomy texty

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eh?

 

If you're using Firefox (I have no idea why you wouldn't) and you have a mousewheel, pressing control and rolling the mousewheel back increases the text size of a site. Might screw with site format, though.

 

As for 2.X, I used to be a believer. It was more archaic, less balanced, had more cred, was more "tru". But 3.X just makes more sense from the standpoint of game mechanics. The edition of a game doesn't obviously inform the quality of the storytelling, it just so happens that the 3.X games have paled in comparison to the better 2.X games.

 

2.X really works better in IE games, though. THAC0 fit the engine like a glove. I found IWD2 to be awkward in comparison to even something inferior like NWN.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Pop

[Weiser_Cain]

I am scroll zooming it pushes the text all over the place.

thac0 is counterintuitive and race class restriction and multiclassing was painful

[Xard]

Now, about BG1, it was extremely boring, granted, but it was a very pure RPG (NWN doesn't beat BG to that, sorry. It beats it to many other things but not roleplaying. I found NWN much more boring that BG1, and that's a lot to say )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Still reading topic but quick answer: I talked about NWN2, not NWN1

 

NWN2 has given awesome RP experiences, so did NWN1 but that wasn't because of Bio. Best roleplaying PW's in NWN1 were/are top quality.

 

Well, it can't be BG when it comes to story since Bhaalspawn's storyline is finished

[Volourn]

No. Bhaalspawn story doesn't have to be finished. Stop sporeaidng rumours, myths, and innuendo!

 

 

"I've played all the Baldur's Gate games i can, and ever since good ole' Black Isle went under a few years ago i've been dying for another one."

 

BIS/ Interplay 'just piblished' it btw. Theya ren't the main reason why the BGs are as good 9or as bad to some) as theya re. Neitehr Obsidian, or BIO have control of the BG saga license anyways. You have to ask Atari. They gots THA powwa!

[White Knight]

Nice quote, lol, at least i have some support on my position. But what possible storylines could be present in the (hopeful) next game?

[Volourn]

Plenty. Do a search on these boards (and others) that discuss this very issue for exmaple.

 

1. The Bhaalspawn didn't have to become a god so he could still be a mortal.

 

2. You could role-play a spawn of the spawn.

 

3. Bhaal's plot to bypass his death could have been more complex then merely making a lot of babies.

 

 

And, taht's just the tip of the iceberg of ideas. The only thing limiting people able to see a possible continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga is a complete lack of imagination.

[Jorian Drake]

IE engine is too old. Besides, NWN2 beats especially BG1 when it comes to roleplaying (and plot isn't certainly bad)... I've never finished first one. Too boring.

 

If BG3 will be made, it'll propably use D&D 3.5

 

World has moved on

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

3.5????????????

 

Best that it never sees the light of day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just close your eyes then

[Dark_Raven]

No. Bhaalspawn story doesn't have to be finished. Stop sporeaidng rumours, myths, and innuendo!

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course its finished. It was over and done with at the end of ToB. Stop being silly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Musopticon?]

taht's just the tip of the iceberg of ideas. The only thing limiting people able to see a possible continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga is a complete lack of imagination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won't even bother.

 

Anyone else?

[Pop]

Honestly, I can see why the Bhaalspawn Saga is equated with the Baldur's Gate series. But even if that particular story is told, it seems obvious to me that while the many D&D franchise games share a setting, they don't share a universe, meaning that what happens in one doesn't happen in another, despite that shared setting. Reference is anecdotal at best. I like the Baldur's Gate setting. I like the NPCs, I liked the relatively complex villains (the weakest BG villain was head & shoulders above the mechanical KoS) I liked how it was willing to depart from standard fantasy convention, in many ways. NWN is also D&D, but in all aspects it is stupidly simple next to BG.

 

I have yet to hear a single good argument for the retirement of that setting, since I recognize the dichotomy between the setting and the story that takes place in it. Why can't another story be told from that same setting? If you want, make the other games' stories irrelevant to the sequel, I'm fine with that. I want a game that's made in the spirit of its predecessors, not necessarily in the letter. We're not going to get that kind of depth out of any other D&D franchise.

 

What I'm saying is, BG3 might very well suck, all sequels have the capacity to suck despite their pedigree. But BG is undeniably more fertile soil than IWD or NWN or the ****in' Elder Scrolls. Hell, NWN2, for all its merits, had to be good in spite of a lackluster predecessor. Indeed, it distanced itself as much as possible from its predecessor, it didn't have the advantage of a fleshed out, proven precedent to rely on. It wasn't a great game that came out of a great game. That wouldn't be the case with BG3. We're throwing away potential if we take a conservative, one-story-per-universe approach. There's no reason it can't still be vitalic.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Pop

[Jorian Drake]

No. Bhaalspawn story doesn't have to be finished. Stop sporeaidng rumours, myths, and innuendo!

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course its finished. It was over and done with at the end of ToB. Stop being silly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It actually got back into pnp, bhaalspawn is made for 3.5, and they describe how/when/where to use them in Faerun. The 'use' of Bhaal is also nicely described.

The story isn't over yet, and there could definetly be a 3rd, or even 4th/5th/ect. episode.

[Musopticon?]

To Poppy:

 

Yes. True. I agree, mostly.

 

The saga, the story of this particular spawn has however ended. That's why everyone gnashes their teeth. Just see Volourn's last post there, he doesn't write anything about the setting, just that the saga can continue. Now, we can agree over semantics, but I think most people agree that when we write 'Bhaalspawn saga' and use a definite article, then it's about the story of the one who wandered from Candlekeep to the very end of the world. That story has closure, in all accounts.

 

Look, I agree that the universe is well worth another visit, but that's not what the fanboys want. They want more Boo, more dakka and more drow sex. And most "I wish for BG3"-posts are about those. I can see the infatuation with the old npcs and the pc, since they were generally awesome and everyone has a couple of histories with them, but I don't agree that they should make another game based on those.

 

If we could have a game about the progenies of Bhaal, about the established universe, but not with such stupid tacked-on premises for story that Volo suggested, then I'd start to be fairly hyped. Right now, however, I can't really see a continuation of the series. Money, age of it, lack of developer(name one rpg dev that doesn't have a game in development right now) and the fact that Atari owns the license and has it's hands full of D&D anyway. I think all of those qualify for a reason.

 

Oh, by the by. If you reply, can you keep the length message to non-astronomical word counts. I think it is safe to say now, that the more verbal you(passive, not targeted at you Poppy) try to be, the less likely it is that I will reply in any length. Heck, I loose the thought process more and more often. It is aggravating.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Musopticon?

[White Knight]

Personally, i think that BG SOA had the best story overall, however the console games' stories are very well developed. The thing that consoles dont give you is the depth of the story (i can even count the times that ive made all the wrong decision in BG) and also the environment. I think of console adaptations as abbreviations of the "true" story, and lacking the detail and personality of the PC games. So basically what im saying is that id like the console story with the computer everything else (the fighting system is up in the air). Anyone agree/disagree?

[Immortality]

I fully agree, and that's what I mean when I say a game is "consolized". It seems that the only thing that remains is the hack n' slash.

 

Regards,

[Musopticon?]

I'm a bit lost on you two. Are you seriously suggesting that console games don't have depth?

[Immortality]

Yes.

 

You can disagree, though.

[Xard]

I disagree with that.

 

To name few "deep" games: Metal Gear Solids, Final Fantasys, Shadow of the Colossus... List goes on

Edited December 6, 2006 by Xard

[White Knight]

I'm not saying that consoles cant have deep storylines, i am saying however, that some games have qualities that are lost in translation between two platforms. I agree with you in saying that many console games have deep, involving storylines, just a few isolated cases, such as the BG games for the PS2 as i was saying above.

[Dark_Raven]

Yes.

 

You can disagree, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No disagreement here. I agree whole heartily.

[Xard]

I'm not saying that consoles cant have deep storylines, i am saying however, that some games have qualities that are lost in translation between two platforms. I agree with you in saying that many console games have deep, involving storylines, just a few isolated cases, such as the BG games for the PS2 as i was saying above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Storyline in SoC is not deep or complicated, but the game itself is art.