BG III

Remove all ads!

If they try doing that henchman crap like in NWN then there is no way I will buy it. I will be open-minded to everything else, but if I can't have a 6 character fully controlled by me party I won't buy it.

 

I really don't mind a prequel, as long as the story is interesting. And the fact they call it BGIII is obviously because the story will be related to the original two games. I liked some ideas mentioned already, such as having Gorion join as an NPC to save a child (charname) to be born shortly.

If they want to remain true to the games' feelings, it has to be party based and should have an isometric view. If the PC/NCPs are in 3D, so be it, but I personaly really don't care about seeing fear in my enemies' eyes. I want to be able to control the party and think about strategy with the placement of each character.

3.5E is very good for turn base combat and the game should be like that. They could however make it the same way as with the original games where we could pause the action whenever we wanted to.

Those were my two cents....!

 

while in this case, since they have said it is a prequel, it probably will be, it doesn't necessarily follow. BG2 (while continuing the story) was nowhere near Baldur's Gate after all. They could justify naming it BGIII snd not linking it to BG1 and BG2 by just setting it in Baldur's Gate. Course, if thyey did it would suck eggs.

 

It might not suck eggs. It might turn out to be way better that any game you've ever played before. It might have the best characters ever. Or it might not. Maybe it will never happen at all. Maybe it will be nothing like BG or BGII and be more like something else, say, Pacman. Now there was a great 2D dungeon crawl.......those power pills were like uber-powered Tensers Transformation potions......

 

well... that post covered all possible outcomes i agree with kitrax though, it would be nice if they could offer 2 modes, isometric and 3d.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but just because it's going to be 3D doesn't mean it will be a first person perspective. It could be like the graphics in Dungeon Seige.

 

Is that a good thing? (never played Dungeon Seige)

 

I'd like to see a prequel, mainly because ToB finished the BG saga. And since I liked the BG saga and want to see more of it, the only way that could be done is a prequel. hence...
Well, that's not entirely true. I guess they could do something after ToB, just not playing as a Bhaalspawn.
A prequel does sound interesting, indeed.

khazadman said: "Maybe it will deal with the Harpers attempt to stop Bhaal from coming back. [Razz]"
I was thinking of that too

 

Sniper: Considering Dungeon Siege is nothing but a mindless click-fest ripoff of Diablo, no it's most definitely not a good thing.

I'm not as concerned about graphics, but I guess that's because I grew up on old-school console RPGs where you REALLY had to use your imagination (look at the 8 bit sprite run up and poke the goblin with a...stick). Here's my opinion though: the 3D NWN-esque graphics are alright, but I vastly prefer the isometric BG graphics even if they are supposedly "primitive" according to some people. I may be biased since I have an older PC and even on the lowest graphics settings NWN slows down to a crawl in a city. I'm also not sure that system is necessarily good for controlling a large party of characters--a lot of times you can't see where the frell you're going. I found myself running headlong into loads of enemies purely by accident in NWN. With one PC + henchman it's mildly annoying but you can work around it. 1 PC + 5 NPCs? Not so much.

I'm more concerned about the plot. I like the idea of the Harpers trying to stop Bhaal from coming back, but part of me isn't too keen on it, 'cause really we know how that one turns out. See, this is why I don't like prequels. Either they're full of nonsensical retcons *cough*Enterprise*cough*, or the writers feel the need to hit you over the head with the "Hey! It's a prequel!" mallet *cough*Crapisode 1*cough*.

I REALLY like the idea of setting the game during the Time of Troubles, but there's one teensy little gameplay-related problem that would cause. IIRC, magic was totally wonky during that period--divine magic for obvious reasons but I think arcane magic was also acting strange (no Mystra around to take care of the Weave). You couldn't play a cleric or wizard unless you're severely crippled, and while that makes for interesting roleplaying, I'm not sure most people would go for that in a cRPG (I certainly wouldn't).

At any rate, I'd like to see some action in Evermeet. Why? I like elves. I'd like to see racial prestige classes (the bladesinger for instance). In short: less humans in funny suits syndrome, more actual implementation of authentic demihumans for those of us who can't stand playing human PCs (I can't be the only one!).

 

@ Sniper (and Paine) - I only played the Dungeon Siege demo. The gameplay sucked, but the graphics were great. So from a graphics perspective (which was my point), yes, it would be a good thing.

 

Dungeon Siege was a brilliant engine paired with a horrible click-fest of a game, I'm surpised they haven't used the engine to make other games.
3d does not take away an rpg's feel, it can add to it (check: Final Fantasy 7).
3d can also add more complexity to a game simply from a tactical view and will allow more character interaction with objects.

@BtR, think outside the box you've locked yourself in. 3d improves games, it does not take away from them. If an rpg sucks and it happens to be 3d it does not suck because it is 3d, there are other factors at work. The 3d of NWN was dandy for role-playing, the only thing lacking was more customisable facial/body types for the PC (rather than just fat/thin and face that came with different hair types). That isn't 3d's fault, that's the developers' fault because IT CAN BE DONE. ToEE had some good 3d implimentation on the models with equipment but you must realise that they can do so much better.
Knights of the Old Republic was 3d, would you say that it took away from the game? If anything it made it better since you could see the facial features of NPC conversations, something that you could not do in 2d without massive installation requirements and possible FMVs.

 

yeah, i definitely agree with this. Something along the lines of dwarven "gutbusters" too.

 

@Paine:


Pretty much 100% agreement here(well, 99% anyway). I don't think that 3d necessarily = first person but I am one of those who still plays shareware RPGs with ultima 4/5 era graphics(top-down icons with few frames of animation) like Natuk, Pirates of the Western Sea(think BG with an 8 member party and oldschool graphics and non-D&D mechanics) and Helherron.

If this is a single PC(not party based) RPG I will steer clear regardless of whether I can run the game.

 

I'm even older school than you. 8-bit graphics? Hah! *begins a back in my day rant* The first DnD based game I played was Pool of Radiance - no not the one you're thinking of - the one developed for the Commodore 64 circa 1985. *end old-fogey rant*

Anyway, it could be 3d and be done well, it just seems that making it 3d will be a little more difficult to see where everyone in the party actually is, especially if they are sticking to the 6-member party setup.

For my part, I'd like to see level 1 characters again. I always prefer "starting" in the very beginning.

 

Dungeon Siege.... Probably the worst game I've ever played, in terms of tedium.
What I'd like to see is the range of races and classes seen in Icewind Dale 2, because Drows are the coolest characters ever.

 

Completly agree, a wider range of Class and Race choice is much better than, ohh, its the third title, and ohhh, its in 3 bluddy D!!!

 

What? You didn't play Zork? (type, "hit troll with dagger" "search west wall") ... no graphics just text.

I agree. I'd rather have a complex character creation menu and the same graphics as BG2. Its substance over style for me, everytime.

 

Bah - the first DnD-ish computer game I played had Zero-Bit graphics (i.e. it only had words). We had to use our imagination more than kids nowadays.

 

Gaah! Angband is back!

Come on. Good graphics is only ever positive, as long as it isn't all there is. It goes beyond "good imagination" to be able to play a game where your character is presented by an '@' this day and age.

When I saw TToEE, my first thought was "If only BG2 looked like this, I could play it another 5 years no problem". Certainly there needs to be imagination involved, but graphics boost that imagination. The better the graphics, the better the developers succeed in giving the player exactly the kind of idea and feeling they want them to, and the more immersive and involving the story will become. Assuming they don't screw something up that is.

Anyway, those mark graphic games like Angband and Nethack (although that one has some simple graphics nowadays) would've been good if they'd had what they lacked in graphics. But they didn't. Sucky playability, no musics and sounds(this is essential for any good game, imagination or not) and absolutely no plot immersion or good dialogue or party banter or whatever at all. Just mr '@' walking around, killing letters, gathering up other letters, and selling them and then going down killing some more letters, perhaps capital ones this time.

So if we were being serious.... no way. Not ever would I go back there.

And btw, while I would like to move on from Infinity to something nicer with better combat / spell animations, character details etc, I do agree that if the price for that would be the dialogue and plot that made BG1&2 so good, then they should rather stick with Infinity instead.

 

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If BG3 isn't about Charname, then it isn't BG3. They should make a new D&D title instead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And lose how many sales?