Baldur's Gate 3 rumor

[Tale]

Baldur's Gate 3! Baldur's Gate 3! Baldur's Gate 3!

[Dark_Raven]

No.

[Dark_Raven]

"BG3 would recieve contempt and utter hatred from the die hard fans just as Fallout 3 has."

 

No.

Well of course it would. More so than probably F3.

[Magister Lajciak]

it was not the "BG series," it was the "bhaal series" that was named BG.

it's great that you keep trying to push that utterly semantic distinction, but have you noticed that nobody is buying it?

 

But "BG3" is also only semantically different from saying a "new D&D computer game", as it will surely be unconnected. I have no problem whatsoever with them using the BG name for marketing if it gets us a new D&D CRPG (as long as it is still 3.5E).

[Monte Carlo]

"BG3 would recieve contempt and utter hatred from the die hard fans just as Fallout 3 has."

 

No.

Well of course it would. More so than probably F3.

 

I have to disagree. The BG fanbase is pretty chilled out compared to the Fallout Taleban.

 

Unless, of course, BG3 was a side-scrolling retro kung-fu D&D console title.

[newc0253]

But "BG3" is also only semantically different from saying a "new D&D computer game", as it will surely be unconnected.

uh, no. the very act of calling a game BG3 is to claim a connection with BG1 and BG2, something beyond simply being another D&D computer game.

 

the name itself is a promise to the customer.

 

if there isn't gonna be a connection, though, then why bother to claim it in the first place? other than to sucker n00bs into buying it?

 

that's why calling a game BG3 is such a crock: either they purport to continue a storyline that's utterly concluded (and thereby tarnish it) or they admit the name is only there for marketing purposes.

 

either way, the BG name is only being used by the publisher as a shameless bid for more cash.

 

why anyone who claims to be a fan of the original BG series would want to condone their favourit series being turned into an empty branding exercise is beyond me.

Edited September 25, 2008 by newc0253

[Tigranes]

BG3 was a side-scrolling retro kung-fu D&D console title.

 

SPINNING FIST, MEGAMAN!

[ramza]

Have you guys seen the new Interplay website? It would be extremely funny if they were the ones to make BG3 (hey, one can dream, right?)...

 

I just wonder who has got the rights to the Mystary Engine. It would be cool if someone could buy it for a measly sum of money and then finish Van Buren and Jefferson...

[kirottu]

Have you guys seen the new Interplay website? It would be extremely funny if they were the ones to make BG3 (hey, one can dream, right?)...

 

I just wonder who has got the rights to the Mystary Engine. It would be cool if someone could buy it for a measly sum of money and then finish Van Buren and Jefferson...

 

I think you need to take your medication.

[ramza]

Have you guys seen the new Interplay website? It would be extremely funny if they were the ones to make BG3 (hey, one can dream, right?)...

 

I just wonder who has got the rights to the Mystary Engine. It would be cool if someone could buy it for a measly sum of money and then finish Van Buren and Jefferson...

 

I think you need to take your medication.

 

Did you take me seriously?

 

Just go watch some anime instead...

[random n00b]

why anyone who claims to be a fan of the original BG series would want to condone their favourit series being turned into an empty branding exercise is beyond me.

And why anyone who enjoyed the first two would be compelled to worship them as some sort of holy totem that must be protected from desecration is beyond me. This sense of entitlement some fans seem to develop towards games they like is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

 

There's plenty of room in the setting for a plot with loose connections and/or references to the Bhaalspawn story... let them make it. If it's garbage, you can always NOT buy it. Simple enough, yes?

 

Getting to see different settings (Eberron?) for a change would be more desirable, though.

Edited September 25, 2008 by random n00b

[Volourn]

RandomN00b wins.

 

 

"Getting to see different settings (Eberron?) for a change would be more desirable, though."

 

Except for this. Eberron is one of the worst D&D settings ever - only rivaled by Birthright and Dark Sun (plus whatever other settings that were a joke to begin with as even these two have some good qualities).

 

 

 

 

"the name itself is a promise to the customer."

 

No.

 

 

 

"either they purport to continue a storyline that's utterly concluded"

 

Nah. not really. The story can eaisly continue. if you actually have imagination that apparantly a lot of BG fanboys lack.

 

 

"and thereby tarnish it)"

 

Nope. Can't tarnish it. No matter how bad a BG3 might be, it won't change the fact that BG1+BG2 are awesome games (imo). Just like the fact that I didn't care for DQ/DW8 doesn't make hate the earlier DQ/DW games. If it does for you, that's your hang up.

 

 

"why anyone who claims to be a fan of the original BG series would want to condone their favourit series being turned into an empty branding exercise is beyond me"

 

That's because you lack of imagination.

 

Besides, I don't care. If a BG3 is made, my main concern is if it's fun. If it's fun, I don't care if it has anything to do with BG2 (even thoguh there's lots of story that can be told). It only matters if I'll enjoy the game. That's why I was looking forward to TBH. It looked like it might have been fun. *shrug*

Edited September 25, 2008 by Volourn

[newc0253]

And why anyone who enjoyed the first two would be compelled to worship them as some sort of holy totem that must be protected from desecration is beyond me.

*shrug* either you liked them or you didn't. but if you liked them, it's hard to understand your enthusiasm for a completely unconnected storyline sharing the same name.

 

and if you didn't like them, your enthusiasm for a BG3 unconnected to BG1 and BG2 is even more mystifying.

 

This sense of entitlement some fans seem to develop towards games they like is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

who said anything about entitlement?

 

There's plenty of room in the setting for a plot with loose connections and/or references to the Bhaalspawn story

yes, that's just what the fans are crying out for - a plot with loose connections and/or references!

 

... let them make it. If it's garbage, you can always NOT buy it. Simple enough, yes?

hey, you know what would be even simpler? if they don't bother to make it in the first place.

 

either that or make a good D&D game but don't call it BG3.

 

i would have thought both those things were simpler than making BG3.

[random n00b]

*shrug* either you liked them or you didn't. but if you liked them, it's hard to understand your enthusiasm for a completely unconnected storyline sharing the same name.

It may be hard, for you. Anyway, it doesn't need to stir "enthusiasm" for me to keep an eye on it. It's just another game I may be interested in, nothing else. Again, I fail to see the cardinal sin in reusing the old saga name. At worst it hints to a lack of imagination. I think I'm keeping my shirt on regarding this.

 

 

and if you didn't like them, your enthusiasm for a BG3 unconnected to BG1 and BG2 is even more mystifying.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Must I be part of some official "true fan" elite BG club to be interested in a possible upcoming BG game, or is it just that my opinion doesn't count because I'm not "hardcore"?

 

 

who said anything about entitlement?

You don't need to mention something by name to convey a general feeling. "This is my BG! Don't you dare mess with it!"

 

 

yes, that's just what the fans are crying out for - a plot with loose connections and/or references!

I don't hear any cries either way - only you.

 

 

hey, you know what would be even simpler? if they don't bother to make it in the first place.

 

either that or make a good D&D game but don't call it BG3.

 

i would have thought both those things were simpler than making BG3.

Yeah. They are "simpler" in much the same way as suicide is "simpler" than living life. That doesn't make it any more sound, though.

[newc0253]

I fail to see the cardinal sin in reusing the old saga name.

sloth? greed? those were sins, last time i checked.

 

Must I be part of some official "true fan" elite BG club to be interested in a possible upcoming BG game?

you mean you're interested in a BG game in name only? i think Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 should be right up your street then.

 

"This is my BG! Don't you dare mess with it!"

*shrug* i'm just saying it would be a dumb idea. i'm not sure why that should offend your delicate sensibilities, though. really, who could have guessed that arguing against BG3 would get your panties in a bunch?

 

Yeah. They are "simpler" in much the same way as suicide is "simpler" than living life.

so not calling the next D&D game 'BG3' would be like ... suicide?

 

get back to debate class, kid. you need the practice.

[Tigranes]

Just to clarify newc.

 

What about a game set in, say, Tethyr, few decades away and only very loosely connected to the bhaalspawn saga but with a fresh story, setting and characters, sharing some familiar gameplay elements such as squad tactical RTwP D&D combat (albeit in 4E).... that's not BG3 either? It has to have something to do with Bhaalspawn saga? Or are you arguing against a BG3 that is unrecognisably different? (i.e. any more than TBH)

 

If the former, I can't see your logic at all. If the latter, well... that *is* sort of unlikely, isn't it?

[taks]

it was not the "BG series," it was the "bhaal series" that was named BG.

it's great that you keep trying to push that utterly semantic distinction, but have you noticed that nobody is buying it?

dunderheads such as you, no, but i don't care about your (or their) opinion anyway. it's not semantic, either. these arguments, put forth by the dunderheads, are simply moronic.

 

taks

[Magister Lajciak]

I fail to see the cardinal sin in reusing the old saga name.

sloth? greed? those were sins, last time i checked.

 

OK, this was a funny retort, I will grant you that!

 

you mean you're interested in a BG game in name only? i think Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 should be right up your street then.

 

I am interested in a new epic-scale D&D CRPG (so long as it remains with 3.5E) regardless of what name it carries. If the BG 3 name is going to enable such a game to be made by attracting sufficient interest/customers than I will gladly take that. And although a new storyline, I am sure they would throw references to the Bhaalspawn saga for those of us veterans who cherish it so dearly - it was a great story after all, so no reason not to have links to it.

 

Side note: I am still not convinced that BG3 is actually in production. Even if it is, we certainly cannot be sure that it will be 3.5E.

[taks]

I am interested in a new epic-scale D&D CRPG (so long as it remains with 3.5E) regardless of what name it carries. If the BG 3 name is going to enable such a game to be made by attracting sufficient interest/customers than I will gladly take that. And although a new storyline, I am sure they would throw references to the Bhaalspawn saga for those of us veterans who cherish it so dearly - it was a great story after all, so no reason not to have links to it.

bingo. that's the whole point. calling it a semantic difference is a joke simply because the "tie to the original series" is intentionally, and solely, for marketing purposes. just like with any other product, brand recognition makes a difference. if you want more games based on D&D, then you want them to use a name that sells the brand. BG does just that. the story-line that involved bhaal is done, at least the back side, but that doesn't mean all other references to baldur's gate should be flushed from any use in the future. it just doesn't make sense.

 

taks

[random n00b]

sloth? greed? those were sins, last time i checked.

Right. So companies shouldn't be driven by profit? You'd make a wonderful CEO.

 

 

you mean you're interested in a BG game in name only? i think Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 should be right up your street then.

No, the only thing that decides whether or not I'm interested in a D&D game is its quality, not its name or the marketing ploys used to sell it.

 

 

*shrug* i'm just saying it would be a dumb idea. i'm not sure why that should offend your delicate sensibilities, though. really, who could have guessed that arguing against BG3 would get your panties in a bunch?

Interestingly enough, it's you who's got his panties in a knot because they might reuse the name of a dead franchise. What I've been arguing all along is that the naming is irrelevant.

 

 

so not calling the next D&D game 'BG3' would be like ... suicide?

You make non sequitur a form of art.

 

 

get back to debate class, kid. you need the practice.

Tsk, tsk. Mediocre, even when trolling. I'd ask for a refund on those "debate classes", if I were you.

[newc0253]

What about a game set in, say, Tethyr, few decades away and only very loosely connected to the bhaalspawn saga but with a fresh story, setting and characters, sharing some familiar gameplay elements such as squad tactical RTwP D&D combat (albeit in 4E).... that's not BG3 either? It has to have something to do with Bhaalspawn saga?

 

two questions:

 

first of all - how is that BG3?

 

aside from the name, which is a marketing decision. what's the connection to the BG series? by your own admission, it doesn't have the same location, story, setting, or characters. it has the same gameplay, but so do most D&D games, broadly speaking. you might as well call it IWD3 or NWN3, for all the difference it would make.

 

the second question - what is the point of calling that game BG3? besides a crass marketing exercise to fool clueless n00bs into buying another game?

 

the Bhaalspawn saga is over. done. finished. they could always try and come up with a way to tack on a prequel or a sequel but, let's face it, it would suck ass and wouldn't be the same.

 

so why bother?

Edited September 25, 2008 by newc0253

[random n00b]

first of all - how is that BG3?

How it isn't? Really, what are the conditions a game must meet so that it'll be *rightful* to call it BG?

 

 

aside from the name, which is a marketing decision. what's the connection to the BG series? by your own admission, it doesn't have the same location, story, setting, or characters. it has the same gameplay, but so do most D&D games, broadly speaking. you might as well call it IWD3 or NWN3, for all the difference it would make.

The setting is the same. So could be some of the characters, and locations. Re-read what Tigranes posted.

 

 

the second question - what is the point of calling that game BG3? besides a crass marketing exercise to fool clueless n00bs into buying another game?

If you are not a clueless n00b, why do you care? It's obviously a marketing exercise. So what?

 

 

the Bhaalspawn saga is over. done. finished. they could always try and come up with a way to tack on a prequel or a sequel but, let's face it, it would suck ass and wouldn't be the same.

Yes, it wouldn't be the same because for it to be the same, it would need to be either BG1 or BG2-ToB. That does not say anything about its quality, though.

 

Interestingly, you can still be wrong, even if all you're doing is, basically, stating the obvious.

 

 

so why bother?

Why not?

[newc0253]

So companies shouldn't be driven by profit?

the week of the biggest financial crisis in 70 years and that's your best argument for making BG3?

 

profit?

 

i sure hope someone's paying you to be a cheerleader for corporate greed, though, because it'd be thoroughly dumb if you were just sitting next to a computer somewhere, being a [edited by SteveThaiBinh] on your own private dime.

 

the only thing that decides whether or not I'm interested in a D&D game is its quality, not its name or the marketing ploys used to sell it

you don't pay attention to the names of games?

 

boy, i'd sure hate to be the guy manning the counter at your local game store:

 

ME: "hey fella, what do you want?"

 

YOU: "i want to buy that new game"

 

ME: "which one? we got hundreds of them"

 

YOU: "that new one, with the dragons"

 

ME: "do you know the name?"

 

YOU: "no, i don't pay attention to names or marketing ploys. i only care about quality"

 

ME: "yeah, that's great, but you still have to tell me what it's called before i can sell it to you"

 

YOU: "uhh..."

 

bottom line, folk who claim names are irrelevant are talking [edited by SteveThaiBinh].

Edited September 26, 2008 by SteveThaiBinh

[random n00b]

the week of the biggest financial crisis in 70 years and that's your best argument for making BG3?

 

profit?

Eh, are you trying to make an argument out of the current financial crisis... against making games?

 

Yeah, OK. You run for the hills now. I'm going to keep an eye on BG3.

 

 

i sure hope someone's paying you to be a cheerleader for corporate greed, though, because it'd be thoroughly dumb if you were just sitting next to a computer somewhere, being like a [edited by SteveThaiBinh] on your own private dime.

I wish they were paying me, that'd be grand.

 

It's still better than being a [edited by SteveThaiBinh] on the Internets, though. Oh, and let's not forget irrelevant.

 

 

boy, i'd sure hate to be the guy manning the counter at your local game store:

 

ME: "hey fella, what do you want?"

 

YOU: "i want to buy that new game"

 

ME: "which one? we got hundreds of them"

 

YOU: "that new one, with the dragons"

 

ME: "do you know the name?"

 

YOU: "no, i don't pay attention to names or marketing ploys. i only care about quality"

 

ME: "yeah, that's great, but you still have to tell me what it's called before i can sell it to you"

 

YOU: "uhh..."

 

bottom line, folk who claim names are irrelevant are talking [edited by SteveThaiBinh].

I order via Gameplay UK. Edited September 26, 2008 by SteveThaiBinh

[newc0253]

what are the conditions a game must meet so that it'll be *rightful* to call it BG?

ah, so now you're responding to my replies to other posters?

 

it's nice to have fans.

 

but who said anything about 'rightful'? not me. maybe it was another poster you're confusing me with.

 

The setting is the same.

Tethyr? Some of the BG series took place there, but so what? Part of SoZ takes place in Chult. Does that make it IWD2?

 

otherwise Tigranes talked about a game with 'a fresh story, setting and characters'. a BG3 with new story, setting and characters is a game with minimal connection to the original. so why call it BG?

 

If you are not a clueless n00b, why do you care? It's obviously a marketing exercise. So what?

Because i like the BG series and would hate to see an inferior sequel, obviously.

 

was that not clear? i thought it was pretty clear myself...