Baldur's Gate 3 A-coming! (Probably.)

Remove all ads!

I'll have to disagree with you Deathmage. There was nothing rustic or homebrewed (and not that much tabletop) about the BGs. They're great games, no doubt, but they're also as "Hollywood epic" as you can get. Which goes to show that "great" and "Hollywood epic" are not mutually exclusive.

 

I apologise if I have upset anyone, I merely find it extremely irritating when people jump to the conclusion that a game will suck just because the original was awesome. It will be different, and may take some getting used to as what will probably be the first 4e CRPG, but I have a great deal of hope for the game. Making computer games requires dozens of people many hundreds of hours' work and seeing torrents of negative vibes can only be little short of heart-breaking for them.

As usual I have come across sounding much more agressive than I had intended. People said these things before BG2 was released, and now it is one of the standards by which we judge new storylines.

 

I didn`t take any offence. Don`t worry about it.

 

Urithrand, I don't assume the game will suck because the original (and sequel) was awesome. I assume the game will suck because Atari got it's negative energy plane hands on it. I assume Atari will suck the life out of the game just like Bodhi's vampires sucked the life out of my unsuspecting characters the first time through. Atari's skill at this is high enough, I don't even think BG can get through unscathed.

As for the rules, 4e doesn't sound too nice to me, but it can be worked around. Crappy rules don't always make crappy games. Unfortunately, given the aforementioned Atari link, I don't think it will be worked around. Whenever Atari is involved, expect Murphy's Law to be applied with ruthless regularity.

P.S. I don't like Atari.

 

dunno

hey come on we all may be being a bit hasty.....if atari can do what bioware did with it (which they probly cant) ......such as the simple (but at the same time damn good grafics) and the great story lines and quests......they may actually get some where.....IF they stick to all the original BG + BG2 layouts and things.....

im not saying that they will.....but if they did then they may get it a bit right....although if they go with the new 4th Edition thing then they have got no hope in hell in meeting with the FAB standards of the BG series......

i mean when i found out i was quite excited about the game...and i hope they do it justice ....and hey who knows maybe they'll have a winner.....

 

When I see a game that has "ATARI" real big on the cover, it's usually a warning sign not to purchase the game.

 

I know this is an old thread and an old comment but I found this browsing around and I'm just stunned at how ridiculous people get about this stuff. Bioshock and Fallout 3 are terrible games? According to the gibbering mad internet obsessive nerd minority maybe.

Fallout 3 was pretty damn good. I was a huge fan of the original series and I thought Bethedsa did a stand up job at trying to retain the same kind of deviously twisted sense of humor of the original series while still moving it forward and doing new things with it. The VATS system got old after blowing a monster's head off for the umpteenth time in a row but the reason people love this game, and why it's still tremendously popular, is because of the questing, the character customization and the completely immersive and open ended gaming world. Which is exactly what made the original games so wonderful in the first place. I guess it's just what I call the Old Folks Syndrome where new stuff is always crappy and not quite as good as it was back in the golden times. And you know what, you're just being overly nostalgic. The game is a smash, a modern classic and truly keeping with the Fallout legacy.

I never played Bioshock myself but I watched my former roommate play it and I was rather stunned by the art direction and the setting, and at the time i was like "This is System Shock gameplay with extremely pretty graphics," and I thought it was a ripoff, but when I found out that the designer was the same it just made sense. Ruined? What? It's the same design, are you hostile to good looking graphics? Do you seem to think it makes the game shallow and without substance? Because that setting is so wildly different and original I dunno how you could possibly consider it marketed to the "new generation" of gamers that were raised on games without substance...I mean these people you're thinking of, are you talking about Unreal Tournament/Halo monkies because they'd probably think Bioshock was "gay" because you couldn't teabag someone in multiplayer.

New takes on classic games aren't always terrible as long as they retain the elements of what made the original popular. Take what I think is the Best Game Ever: Civilization. II improved on it, III improved on that, IV improved on that even further. I don't think Sid Meier does anything on this game anymore, I'm pretty sure that he hasn't done any code monkey stuff on it since II. However, it still maintains true to the original design, and continues to improve and become more enjoyable in each iteration. And better to look at, to boot. So no, you are pretty much wrong in saying that sequels of classic games will always suck. Fallout retained its sense of humor in the bleak landscape, the open ended gaming, and the SPECIAL system. Bioshock still had the same kind of character customization, presentation of the storyline and the horror elements of System Shock. Are they as good or better? I can't even compare Fallout 3 to the first two, it wouldn't be fair. They're all great in their own ways, and they have their own problems. Is it worthy of the name? Absolutely.

These games aren't for the new generation of gamers, they're for young adults who played these games in their youth, as well. The demographics of the video game market casts a much larger net now than they did in the late 90s, when I suspect you were the "new generation" that all the completely obsessive 80s gamers complained about. I don't think anyone would be interested in reviving Fallout 3 to appeal to people who play Halo or anything else for that matter. Bethedsa revived Fallout because they loved it (it shows) and they wanted to keep it going. And it's one of the best games of the decade.

As far as BG3 is concerned who knows, I'm sure it's just a rumor and it's probably Atari's attempt at creating a Diablo 3 killer.

If you want to talk about **** that ruined Fallout, talk about tactics or brotherhood of steel but leave F3 out of it. It makes you sound foolish. It's not Godfather 3, k?