What would you wish on Baldurs Gate 3?

Muteki · Post by **Muteki** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:47 pm

[QUOTE=Skuld]Why don't you go check out the thread entitled "PC gamer has some information on BGIII." From what I understand BGIII will take place generations before the bhaalspawn saga, so no more talk of recurring NPC's.[/QUOTE]

That is true, but you just might run into "a hamster-toting ancestor of Minsk" as PC Gamer put it. You might run into Gorion or Elminster (how old are those guys, anyways?). You will probably hear or see Elliseme(sp?) or even Jon Irenicus. I'm not the most familiar with the life span of the elves in the Dungeon and Dragons setting, so I am unsure if this is possible. Although Irenicus was considered one of the most powerful magicians, so he could very well have kept himself alive with immortality.

Alas, almost everything we say will be speculation until further, more concrete details are released. I just hope this doesn't turn into the formerly planned BG3, and get swept under the carpet.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:13 am

[QUOTE=Skuld]I don't recall what game it was, but I do vaguely remember something of a new game coming out with a story written by R.A. Salvatore. Why not enlist one of the forgotten realms writers out there to come up with a story? I'm sure they'd love to do it, hell if I were a fantasy writer I'd love to see one of my stories actually fleshed out.[/QUOTE]

Skuld, that's what I'd call heaven: a story written by Salvatore brought to life by Bioware...

Btw, Bioware. You must have seen the first (or so) page of the BG II manual, dedicated to Dan. Do you know sg about him? (I mean more than what's mentioned there). /Offtopic...?/

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:23 am

Well as hard as I've tried to search for reliable information on this game, gotten absolutely nothing, except for the odd comment stating it nothing more than a publicity grab by PC Gamer...

So lets assume that the game is using the Dragon Age engine, which btw is a very nice looking engine. Then I'd want BG3 to be able to retain the party element from the previous games. Dragon Age is strictly a one-player affair and I'd hate to see that element transferred over to BG3.

EDIT - Dragon Age IS a party based game, so I'm happy on that point.

Oh God, I hope they don't dumb this game down, I can't stand the current crop of RPG's currently being sold...

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:04 am

I'm awaiting the next issue of Computer Gaming World and see what they'll say about it. In my opinion, they're must more reliable and fair then PC Gamer is, and CGW would probably know if something like this was going on.

CrownHead · Post by **CrownHead** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:15 am

[QUOTE=Skuld]Why don't you go check out the thread entitled "PC gamer has some information on BGIII." From what I understand BGIII will take place generations before the bhaalspawn saga, so no more talk of recurring NPC's.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying they should do Sarevok or anything, I was merely saying something like Sarevok. You know, the worst enemy you've ever encountered ends up in your party, they can do that with anyone they want.

check1 · Post by **check1** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:19 am

1. Charismatic and interesting NPCs.
2. Epic storyline.
3. Prestige classes.
4. Divine influence. One of the most interesting aspects of the baldur's gate games for me was the divinity of the main character. The game wouldn't have been even close to being as great as it was if he was just joe schmoe from candlekeep saving the sword coast from the evil iron throne. Incredibly boring. BG3 must have something equally as grand for the main character or I doubt I will even play it.

rebel3_6_1 · Post by **rebel3_6_1** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:39 pm

I think they should have an intriguing and powerful villian. Sarevok was hands down the best villian in the BG series. Jon Irenicus is kinda lame as a villian. He's too weak and he doesn't intimidate me at all. Melissan was kinda weak too.

Also, what about a blacksmith who can forge custom weapons? You bring him certain things and he puts them together to make weapons and armour that suit your style of play.

me0w · Post by **me0w** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:06 am

Irenicus was a brilliant bad guy, he was way better than o'l Serevok, he had the greatest voice set, and he had much better dialogue, you really got to know him..

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:18 am

[QUOTE=me0w]Irenicus was a brilliant bad guy, he was way better than o'l Serevok, he had the greatest voice set, and he had much better dialogue, you really got to know him..[/QUOTE]

I second that one. Savvy is a pathetic fighter, only violent and malevolent in nature. Irenicus is a thorn, a walking wound, and his storyline go deeper than anyone thinks (or can be worked to go deeper).

The moment I run the game for the first time, and Jon started the torture sequence I knewed he was the ultimate bad butt to kick. My Barbarian, (I always played fighters at that point, hadnt met cheese) Iridur Axewieldr, had so much trouble finding his ways till Jon.

And, in the end, when I heard him saying "to end... like this?" I was sure that depression will strike me. I needed more - I needed the evil guidance, the powerlust.

Damn, I'm Irenicus fan.

rebel3_6_1 · Post by **rebel3_6_1** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:59 am

I agree that Irenicus had an excellent voiceset. He was deeper than Sarevok in the sense that you learned more about his past and the reasons he is nothing more than a shell of a man, but Sarevok had a mysteriousness around him that made it wonderfully delightful to slowly learn who he was while discovering who you were in the process. I like the fact that Sarevok's ambitions had a better backdrop. He was the son of the Lord of Murder and intended to gain enough power to become the second Lord of Murder. Irenicus, on the other hand, had a weak backdrop in my opinion. He planned to drain a tree of it's energy to become a god. I just think that's kinda lame.

Irenicus did not frighten me at all, while I was deathly afraid of facing Sarevok. Before the fights with Irenicus my thought process was something along the lines of "Ok, I'm gonna go in and kill this moron and get it over with" while my thought process before the final showdown with Sarevok was more like "Oh crap! What do I do now?! I'm gonna go in there and he's gonna beat the hell out of me!" And that's basically what happened in both instances. It took me several tries to defeat Sarevok & company while Irenicus was a walk in the park. I think the main reasons for this were:
A) I wasn't afraid of Irenicus because of the meeting at Spellhold where I beat him like a rag doll.
B) Sarevok had several of his strongest allies aiding him while Irenicus was foolish enough to try to fight me by himself.

After just completing Shadows of Amn for the first time in over a year, I must admit that Irenicus himself is a good villian. If they made the fights against him MUCH tougher and gave him a better evil plan to try to carry out, he might've been a great villian.

Back to BG3, writing this has led me to the belief that fighting the main antagonist before the final showdown is a bad thing. I think that in BG3 if you are too fight the cheif villian in the middle of the game, it should be an unwinnable fight. Realizing you could easily kick the hell out of your foe in the middle of the game just takes something away from it.

me0w · Post by **me0w** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:43 am

Both plans were evil, both contained becoming a god, and both resulted in the killing of masses. So many elves would of died with the tree of life dieing so really Irenicus is so much better, he got revenge in his, Serevok is just some power hungry kid ogre...

PlatinumWeaver · Post by **PlatinumWeaver** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:16 pm

I went and had a look at some screenshots of Dragon Age.. the engine looks quite nice. If you are able to zoom out a little more to get a larger tactical view of your characters then I think it could mesh quite well with BG style gameplay..

Something else I want... Customisation!

Lots of different facial models, or at least lots of different hairstyles and colors..
Lots of diffferent skin colors and body shapes...
Lots and lots of different voice-sets... properly done voice-sets...

Yeah.. add all that to the list

me0w · Post by **me0w** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:37 am

"Lots of different facial models, or at least lots of different hairstyles and colors..
Lots of diffferent skin colors and body shapes..."

Reminds me of NWN, I think BG had it right, 2 colours being changed, and race/skill changes in paper doll.

Making you look like yourself, or look realy cool shouldn't matter, it has nothing to do with gameplay... its **** like that which isn't good, it makes the companies think all that matters to games is the FTS rate, ammount of poly's and general prettyness, who cares if you look dumb, the game having a plot and good NPS and mainly the engine is what counts.

rebel3_6_1 · Post by **rebel3_6_1** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:50 pm

Having great graphics and cool color combinations does not in itself make a game bad. The problem is that many companies feel that gamers will buy a game simply because it has top-of-the-line graphics, and therefore focus less on creating a deep plot with interesting characters. Their approach approach believes that gamers won't mind doing stupid things or killing random people because they seem to hate you for no apparent reason if it looks cool while you are doing it. I prefer a great plot to pretty graphics, but if a company can do both, I'm all for it

.

<edit>By the way, Meow, you get edited for curse words more than anyone I've seen.

Romco · Post by **Romco** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:08 pm

The following are IMO essential to any future Baldur's Gate game (NOT in order of importance):

1) Epic & Excellent Storyline
2) Long Game/Lots of Gameplay (Think 200 hours like BG II had)
3) Possibility of reaching high in terms of power of the character and party
4) Huge, detailed world to explore with numerous, yet logically assigned side-quests
5) High level of interactiveness and involvement with the world and NPCs (the romances were a great addition, as was the ability to gain control/ownership of keep/sphere/organizations/temples...)
6) Attention to detail in the game and game-world
7) Party based play with the ability to FULLY control the entire party
8) 'Isometric' (or similar) top down perspective - NOT some over-the-shoulder camera or first person perspectives - Top down view is essential to the BG experience and sets it apart from most other RPGs
9) Very few if any bugs
10) The possibility of using various mods (including some 'cheating' ones such as those that removed the XP cap, or those that allowed for modification of a character to say a different race - although some were not the best for playing the game initially, they allowed for a lot of replay value)
11) The main character should be personally involved in the main story (so far this has been accomplished through the Bhaalspawn connection - since the storyline will be different they will have to come up with something else that is original and still provides a direct connection between the character and the story)
12) The game should be challenging to complete

SP101 · Post by **SP101** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:59 pm

More ways to complete quests... not only the "Good Choice or Evil Choice".

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:52 pm

[QUOTE=Romco]<snip>
8) 'Isometric' (or similar) top down perspective - NOT some over-the-shoulder camera or first person perspectives - Top down view is essential to the BG experience and sets it apart from most other RPGs
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

Well - many cRPGs runs with this view, so I wouldn't call it the "setting apart" feature of BG.

The Jester · Post by **The Jester** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:35 pm

I do have a good idea for the story of the game.

A war is about to start in the realm as a King(of whatever country) become mad, manipulated by his council which is made of traitors and scammers.All kingdoms have to protect themselves to survive such a fight.This would involve war and skirmishes everywhere.The main character should be a simple peasant who can become a great ord who fight along with elves or whatever to defeat the puppet king.I now need to go deeper in the plot, who are the mans in the council and which locations would it be needed to visit.Anyway, the player would choose which side he want to follow.

What about that?

Romco · Post by **Romco** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:04 pm

[QUOTE=Xandax]Well - many cRPGs runs with this view, so I wouldn't call it the "setting apart" feature of BG.[/QUOTE]

Yes, many do, but I believe it is essential to the feel to Baldur's Gate, as opposed to other games that do not. I am very dismayed by the fact that they want to change the perspective to 'cinematic over the shoulder camera'.

It simply will not feel like Baldur's Gate anymore if they do that.

CrownHead · Post by **CrownHead** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:02 am

[QUOTE=The Jester]I do have a good idea for the story of the game.

A war is about to start in the realm as a King(of whatever country) become mad, manipulated by his council which is made of traitors and scammers.All kingdoms have to protect themselves to survive such a fight.This would involve war and skirmishes everywhere.The main character should be a simple peasant who can become a great ord who fight along with elves or whatever to defeat the puppet king.I now need to go deeper in the plot, who are the mans in the council and which locations would it be needed to visit.Anyway, the player would choose which side he want to follow.

What about that?[/QUOTE]

It's a pretty good plot I'll admit.
But not as good as mine. Anyway I can't say anymore about it because I am hard at work on it as we speak, heh.

I'll fill you guys in later.