Is there a BG 3?

Remove all ads!

I don't know how so many people would think it even could be a continuing of the Bhaalspawn saga at all. The game ended with ToB, there is nothing more to it...
Since it can't be a "expansion" to the original BG games, I wouldn't like at all that they called it Baldurs Gate3 in the frist place.
They have to think of some other name imo. BG is a classical trilogy, and since this suposely new game can't deal with the same subject as the BG trilogy, I think they should think of some other name.
BG: Dark Alliance realy sucked, and I think it's a shame that the great games called Baldur's Gate, should share name with that piece of crap.

 

Okay Stupid Question.

If the game engine for BGI, II, ID, etc was so great and awesome.(which I agree). Why doesn't someone devise a new game, following the new rules and changes, but utilizing the same engine. If these games were so popular and made so much money for these companies. Why are these other companies putting out crap. I hear that the new Demon Stone and Demon Shard games cannot even compare. WHY? Technology and these games should be moving forward shouldn't they?

 

Well you have several questions in there from my view point:

1. Why don't they make a new game with the same old IE engine?

Since game technology has advanced so much, companies don't want to use an old engine for a new game, 3D is what is in now a-days. And most game companies don't really care about the players as much, just what makes them money.

PS: Demon Stone is for console, they are obviously not going to use an old PC engine for a new console game.

2. Why would a company make a crappy sequel/prequel/related title to a good game?

Atari is making BG3 just to make money. Since the series made so much money and got so popular, fans are most likely going to swarm to buy BG3. All they have to do is provide a crappy game with the BG title (or an other title of a good game) and good previews/screenshots and it will sell like crazy. It has happened many times for both games and movies. Sure, they might actually make a pretty good game (even though NWN was 3D as well and was horrible, and that Atari has a really bad history) but considering the circumstances, I doubt it.

 

OT

I don't agree with you here. Not by a long shot! the OC and the exp campaigns were not anthing to write home about. but! Aurora and online campaigns made nwn more than worth the while to me!

Tiberius:

Games like ToEE had proven that they cannot sell squat compared to the heavy 3D games...

 

@olimikrig: I was talking about the 3D graphics actually, since BG3 will be 3D as well (no RPGs should be 3D like NWN IMO).

 

I second the opinion that no RPG should be in 3D. The isometric view is the perfect view for RPG's; you can see all your party in one shot, can better position them for fights, etc.

I don't know that I'd get a new BG game anyway, even if it was isometric. The story, or at least that one that drew me in, is over. I definitely would buy it if it was isometric, a quality game and the start of a new saga, rather than just a one-off game made solely to cash in on the BG name.

 

Well they announced it would be 3D, but if Bioware is the developer (they have mentioned they are working on a unannounced title, for all we know it might be BG3) then it should be pretty good. NWN was mainly a solo game, so the view wasn't really made for a party.

What strikes me as odd is that they have decided to call it 'BG3', BG2 ended the series. And before BG1 the main character spent almost all his life in Candlekeep. So I'm thinking, what the heck are they going to base the story on if it is related the to Bhaalspawn series?! They could stick the BG title and make it a totaly different game, such as BG: Dark Allience was, but they did call it 'BG3'. Perhaps they haven't really come up with a real name, and just stuck the BG3 name on it for now . I doubt they are actually working on it though.

 

How would you adjust a 3D view to make it more workable for a party? I don't see how it could be done and not affect gameplay. If there is a way, great, but I still think isometric is the way to go.

I think it's their way of trying to milk the name value BG has. As you rightly point out, the series ended with BG2: ToB. There is nowhere to go with it, unless they're going to use the game to tell the post-Bhaalspawn saga stories of the hero and his friends.

 

They mentioned it would be a prequel. Before BGI the main character spent most of his life in Candlekeep. I doubt they will make a game based on his adventures in Candlekeep, showing how he read books all the time and only being able to be level 1 .

 

I guess they could have it be about Gorion.

 

"Baldur's Gate" doesn't neccesarily need to imply the protagonist from the series, but rather the saga of it - my point being that Gorion played a big part in it, and there would be no reason why a game about his would not be consistant to the name (except class choice will be very, very restricted)

IMHO a story line closely linked to the Bhallspawn saga would take away too much of the intrigue and discovery that made the original series. Something more removed would be more apt imho.

It is somewhat frustrating to observe the current RPG's - nothing seems to compare with the Infinity Engine greats. The only decent "RPG's" tend to lean far too strongly action part of the equation. Not that action rpg's are bad, or don't have their place, but we have virtually no good pure, thinking-mans rpg's on the market.

If a dev team made a decent one it would sell regardless of being 3D or not -Why? because there would be no competition.

 

I agree. The story and saga of BG 1 and 2 is something special, and anything added to it would just spoil the beauty of it for no reason.

That is a great point. I'd love to play another RPG, if only so I don't overdose on IWD/BG2 greatness, but I've seen nothing since they came out that grabs me like they have.

Maybe BG2 and the others were too good. They seem to have set a standard that no other game seems able or willing to reach.

 

That is exacly what Atari will do IMO, ruin a perfectly good series by sticking a crappy game with the same title in there, just to make money.

I believe Dragon Age will be able to keep up to the BG standards, it's being made by the same company after all.

 

It's obvious that Baldur's Gate III is going to be on sale sometime! It's just that it'll come out after all of BioWare's and Black Isle's current projects do. Try a "BGIII" Google search if you want to see proof. (I think the president of both companies said so himself!)
Like all of you said, when BGIII comes out, BioWare and Black Isle is going to make a whole lot of money! I just hope that it sticks to the 2nd edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

I hate be the guy who tells you there's no Santa Claus, Sylvanus, but Black Isle Studios went belly up about 2 years ago, and Bioware isn't involved in the project at all. And if/when it comes out, since the property is owned by Wizards of the Coast (who owns D&D), it will definitely not be 2nd edition rules. It'll be 3.5 rules, unless they take so long that 4th edition comes out and they'll use that. As far as WotC is concerned, 2nd edition is dead.

Just FYI, this is all old, old news. It's like your post got lost in a time warp from 3 years ago or something.

Welcome to SP, by the way.

 

Please, theres plenty of things to cover if they would release a new game. You could go to places like Thay and Kara-tur (if i spelled that right). There plenty of places to go and people to see.

 

@ Geist; the point is not that is no story to tell (as there are plenty of ideas, there's even great ones here on this forum), but that the chances of it being as deep, engaging and involved as BG2 are almost zero.

There has been a lot of talk about this game in this forum and I really recommend reading through as much as you can. Quite an interesting read.