PC Gamer has some information on BG 3

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:59 am

[QUOTE=UncleScratchy]I'm in me0w's camp on this one. I have a strong feeling that a 3D engine will make BG3 another NWN disaster. 3D probably means you won't be able to make a 6 person party - so I predict its going to be more of a MW type solo action game. My other fear is that it will end up becoming another massive multiplayer on-line type game. The isometric view allows for party building and game play that doesn't require obscene hi-end system requirements. I don't see that happening with 3D. I don't have a good feeling about this endeavor, it sounds like it might be screwed up from the get go. I'd rather forgo the 3D and have a game that has a good story line, interesting characters, sensible equipment, relatively simple game controls and reasonable system requirements (I can't even run the PC Gamer demo disk games on my 2 yr old Pentium 4 system because of the rediculous minimum system requirements the game makers are using).[/QUOTE]

Well- you can certainly have isometric viewpoint in a 3D graphics engine as well as you can in 2D.
And when thinking of that this game is way into the future (if even it is at all) - I think it would be a little to early to worry about systems requierment for the game.
If we calculate the game comes out in 2007/2008 (I doubt Atari would want it competing with NwN2), we are looking at some way different system specs for the gaming computer.

Furthermore - the usage of 3D graphics needs not take away from the story and gameplay. Unfortunally - many developers are going to much overboard with graphics and not careing enough about the story - but the two are not neasecarily mutal exlusive. Neither is 2D equal to a good story either.
They need to focus on a good story under any circumstances.

However - your fears are valid, and I share (some of) them on some plane eventhough the game hasn't been announced - but I do not instantly blame 3D graphics for all the woes causing bad gamestories and gameplay. I blame nearsighted developers and publishers thinking to much about the bottom line and release dates.

3D graphics aren't pandora's box.

Skuld · Post by **Skuld** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:14 am

But when something's gotta give the powers that be will choose to put more emphasis on their sexy 3D graphics than storyline and depth of play. We should all be well aware of that by now.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:42 am

And that is because of developers/publishers giving more emphasizem on the release date and the bottom line.

No where does it state that a game can't have good (3D) graphics and a good storyline and gameplay.

We can agree that games should have good stories and gameplay, and that it is often not produced in todays games. However, that is not solely depending on whether or not the game has 2D or 3D graphics. We have seen just as many 2D games with lousy gameplay.

Skuld · Post by **Skuld** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:17 pm

But most of those were lousy games altogether. I know it's not solely dependent on what type of graphics a game has. It's dependent what kind of constraints the publishers put on the dev team.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:38 pm

I'm generally trying to stay out of this discussion, simply to avoid the 2D vs. 3D argument going on. Frankly, neither make a game.

Anyway, my point in this post. Did anyone think that perhaps BG3, if it comes out (Which I truly hope it does not) would more than likely deal with the story of Gorian 'rescuing' a child of Bhaal from a high priestess, the initial story to the whole child of Bhaal saga. With that in mind, the reoccuring characters would more than likely end up being Jaheira and Khalid. Just a thought, though.

Skuld · Post by **Skuld** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:13 pm

As I've said before (maybe not in this thread) the NPC's you'd most likely see would be Khalid, Jaheira, Montaron, and Xzar because of their associations with longstanding organizations. The story line you propose however would also put severely limitations on character creation. And if the story will indeed take place way before hand with descendents of previous NPCs I would think that no one would be coming back.

moltovir · Post by **moltovir** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:52 pm

I don't understand why everyone is so scared of 3D... 3D can give a game more depth and more detail. A party-game based is perfectly possible in 3D (@UncleScratchy: i wouldn't call NWN a disaster, it was a good game, lots of people thought it was bad because it wasn't "BG in 3D"). Also 3D makes lots of character animations possible. In BG, your characters have perhaps 2-3 combat moves, but in NWN you actually see fighters hit and parry. It would also add a whole new dimension to thievery, if you can actually scale walls or hang on ceilings to avoid guards and do some nice classic burglary. Adding a new dimension (literally) to a game makes so many new possibilities, it would be unwise to ignore those and just make a BG2 copy. 3D can't kill a game, bad developer choices or greedy publishers can. And, standing still is going backwards

Skuld · Post by **Skuld** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:47 pm

We all know 3D can give a game a great sense of depth, and if done well a great game of BG caliber could be spawned from it. But from what we've seen, what the BG name requires a game to be(in the eyes of many) probably won't happen in 3D. Sure it would be wonderful to see it in 3D with all of a thieves abilities coming alive and not just being useless numbers. Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see, and since I've heard that NWN is slated for 2006 it'll be some time before we see BGIII.

LastManStanding · Post by **LastManStanding** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:49 pm

I would like to see it stay true to the origonal bg games maybe slightly improved graghics but keep it overhead. I not impressed with 3rd and first person rpgs like marrow wind and Kotor I liked kotor but i wouldn't want to see bg in that format.

and also i would like the option to have turn based or realtime gameplay.
Becouse i found it is harder to use mages in real time and they're easier yo use in turn based games like FF10

also maybe try to add some epic battles on a large scale like you have tons of allies and there are overwelming numbers of enemies

Also I didn't like the XP cap in the original bg games I would rather have a more authintic d&d experience

iamweaver · Post by **iamweaver** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:29 pm

If BG3 ends up (as most of us hope) a optionally-controlled party tactical game, then it really has to be turn-based, rather than RTS, as it is difficult for the average game player to control multiple characters to the level of detail required.

also maybe try to add some epic battles

The real problem here is that this again would probably require you to manually control most of the characters - and this game is an RPG, not a turn-based tactical wargame. The fanbase is not identical, and many RPGers would grind their teeth at having to manually control 50 characters for each round of a 40-round battle. This is *not* a good way to add gameplay hours, IMO

Also I didn't like the XP cap in the original bg games I would rather have a more authintic d&d experience

How does placing an XP camp on the game make it a non-authentic D&D experience? A billion years ago, when I played D&D (not even AD&D - I have been "out of the loop" for a bit

), the DM (nowadays, you call 'em GMs? is that Game Master?) would try to make sure the encounters were tailored, more or less, to the character's levels. I just kinda figured the XP cap was supposed to keep folks from "ruining" the game by cheesing their way to a boring level. Course, IMO, if a player wants level forever, I guess they can - it's their game, after all! In "real" AD&D, though, are there EXP limits? In pen & paper games, are their any players outside of young teenagers who really play level 100 Wizards and such?

rebel3_6_1 · Post by **rebel3_6_1** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:57 pm

I am in favor of epic battles, as I've said before. I don't think you should be able to control 40 or 50 allies, but they should fight beside you against common enemies. I think that's what LastManStanding meant too.

Skuld · Post by **Skuld** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:17 pm

The level cap in the original BG games wasn't to most people's liking because if you played with any less than a party of 6 you'd hit the cap before the end of the game. If a game is able to be able to be played solo or with a party the experience cap should reflect that. I think that's all people want is a reasonable experience cap, so that if you choose to play with less than the suggest amount of party members you're not left at a disadvantage when you can't level up anymore.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:21 pm

[QUOTE=LastManStanding]I would like to see it stay true to the origonal bg games maybe slightly improved graghics but keep it overhead. I not impressed with 3rd and first person rpgs like marrow wind and Kotor I liked kotor but i wouldn't want to see bg in that format.<snip>
[/QUOTE]

I agree. I don't really think First Person View is any good for a cRPG, especially if you have a party or a henchmen system. It will become to complex to work with.

Besides - I don't walk around with blinders on in real life (love this saying), so I hate having my view cut off like FPV does in games.

[QUOTE=LastManStanding]
Also I didn't like the XP cap in the original bg games I would rather have a more authintic d&d experience[/QUOTE]

Well - level caps are nesecary for a few reasons in my opinnion.
Firstly - it helps the developers to balance the game, when they have a good indactor that the player will be around level X at the time they reach point Y in the game.
Allowing for an insane level, will mess up game balance (BG2:ToB, NwN:HotU).

Secondly - it forces the player to make choices where there are both advantages and disadvantages. If there is no level cap, basically every character can become quite adapt at many things(in 3ed, not in 2ed)
Imposing a level cap, makes it so when the player have to make a choice at level up, he has to concider pros and cons. This was one thing I disliked about Morrowind, that every character basically can do everything. No choices, no conflicts.

Romco · Post by **Romco** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:30 pm

Every big new game today simply has to be 3D. There is simply no way around it, or else the game would be left behind by competition and only a few hardcore fans like us would play it. I liked the 2D graphics of BG II, but I do not think 3D graphics would spoil the game - in fact, it would probably do just fine with 3D graphics. What WOULD spoil the game, however, is if it had a 'cinematic over-the-shoulder' perspective or a 'first person' perspective. I really, really think they need to keep the viewpoint essentially isometric from the top down, just as it was in Baldur's Gate II.

As to the discussion about how to implement parties, again I have to vote for the incumbent system as was used in BG II. All other systems that merely give you henchmen over whom you have no full control (for example, cannot switch weapons and change gear) simply do not approach the excellence of the BG II system with full party control.

Opalescence · Post by **Opalescence** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:58 pm

Basically then what you're saying is PLEASE don't turn BGIII into NWN.

C'mon you can admit it, that's what you're saying. And I agree with you. I personally love Morrowind so I really can't see how being in 3d would kill BGIII, plus the fact that developers these days are seriously biased toward graphics, their mentality being that kids like eye-candy better than they like storyline (you know it's true). However, I've discovered there's like a "total dimension" thing. In other words, have you noticed that, in general, the worse the graphics, neccessarily the better the game? The developers just didn't have the resources to get better graphics so instead they focused on the game itself. And when the game loses an entire DIMENSION, like the 3rd one, then the developers can go ahead and develop some pretty cool stuff! But, consequently, I've discovered that the BETTER the graphics, the WORSE the game. Because the developers are so infatuated with making everything on the screen pretty, they spend less and less time actually making the game fun to play. Take my favorite gripester game, Spellforce. It's gosh-darned pretty, but it sucks monkey turds. Of course, there ARE exceptions to the rule, like Morrowind. But for the most part, As soon as they add a third dimension it's all over. And the third dimension doesn't even neccessarily have to be complete, such as Neverwinter Nights, which was a bone fide failure at being BGIII in 3d, even though you STILL really only had an isometric view, just that the view was slightly better-looking.

I am an all-or-nothing guy. I do NOT want another NWN, so if they go 3d I want them to go 3d, Morrowind style. Else, I'd want them to keep the old BGI/BGII style isometric top-down view. Like I said, all or nothing. I am seriously disappointed with the NWN pseudo-3d view, if you ask me it's like medium armor in Morrowind - a bit of the better parts of light armor (isometric) and heavy armor (full 3d), but still can't compare to either one.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:40 pm

I think 3D will be fine, as long as the camera isn't attached to the character, like it was in NWN (and Diablo).

Fred83 · Post by **Fred83** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:56 pm

I REALLY hope they dont make it turn based.
I HATE turnbased games. So many games, that i really wanted to play until i found out they wre turnbased, that i haven't botherd getting in any way.
Second 3D is really a bad move. Usually what games get in 3d they lack in world detail.

Fred83 · Post by **Fred83** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:58 pm

[QUOTE=Nightmare]I think 3D will be fine, as long as the camera isn't attached to the character, like it was in NWN (and Diablo).[/QUOTE]

Diablo isnt more 3d than bg2 ?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:28 pm

[QUOTE=Fred83]I REALLY hope they dont make it turn based.
I HATE turnbased games. [/QUOTE]

Who's saying they will? I don't recall a turn-based RPG in years. Either it will be in realtime, with one character, or use that horrible AI with multiple characters that KotoR had, or go for a multiple characters in a pause/time style like the BG series. -Assuming, of course, anything gets made.

Aubrey · Post by **Aubrey** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:45 pm

[QUOTE=UncleScratchy]I'm in me0w's camp on this one. I have a strong feeling that a 3D engine will make BG3 another NWN disaster. 3D probably means you won't be able to make a 6 person party - so I predict its going to be more of a MW type solo action game. My other fear is that it will end up becoming another massive multiplayer on-line type game. The isometric view allows for party building and game play that doesn't require obscene hi-end system requirements. I don't see that happening with 3D. I don't have a good feeling about this endeavor, it sounds like it might be screwed up from the get go. I'd rather forgo the 3D and have a game that has a good story line, interesting characters, sensible equipment, relatively simple game controls and reasonable system requirements (I can't even run the PC Gamer demo disk games on my 2 yr old Pentium 4 system because of the rediculous minimum system requirements the game makers are using).[/QUOTE]

I am joining your camp. If they have another NWN kind of version in mind, disappointed is guaranteed. I can't understand the logic of giving priority to game engines over the story, the plot, the characters; in short, everything that makes a good RPG.