BG3 petition to Atari

Elhioc · Post by **Elhioc** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:37 am

Originally posted at planetbaldursgate forums:

If You agree our point of view, sind our petition, which is placed here -> http://www.petitiononline.com/baldur2d/petition.html

Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale fans are disappointed with the news that Baldurs Gate III will use 3D graphic engine. We don't want new NWN or ToEE, we want interesting and easy playable game in 2D isometric view. Infinity engine is welcomed. Ogre curved mouth would be "nice" in NWN 2 but not in Baldurs Gate III. ToEE used "new cool graphics" and failed on all lines. Making quest in a Hommlet was a disaster… We demand that BG III would be a 2D isometric game, if not - do not dare call it Baldurs Gate III. And furthermore - don't make a stupid fantasy Dragonball like game where quest are like go kill 100 goblins.

Atari isn't exactly famous about making good games but one can always hope they dont make the mistake of using some halfarsed 3d engine for baldur's gate.

So sign people, sign!

edlington_j · Post by **edlington_j** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:07 am

Come Off It

This is rediculous.

TOEE wasn't a bad game because of the graphics. The graphics and combat system were the best parts of it. It was the story telling and simple things like missing item descriptions that were appalling making for an extremely shoddy experience overall. I for one would welcome putting that engine in the hands of Bioware or Black Isle with their ability to tell a story and eye for detail. BG and BG2 would have been even greater games with the TOEE graphics engine.

Let's go 3D. The future is now. This is the jet age people. In the 'PC Gamer has something on BG3' thread it mentions that there's a possibility they'd use the Dragon Age engine. In the preview on this site it looks like an amazing tool set for creating an RPG. The best part of BG for me (among many quality aspects of course) is the tactical combat. Mention in the Dragon Age preview of hieght coming into it sounded fantastic. Fully 3D weapon ranges and areas of affect should massively expand the tactical possibilities not to mention the variety of encounters the developers can plan for your party. Then there's flying and dropping things on monsters from a great height. It goes on and on.

TOEE wasn't rubbish because of the graphics. NWN wasn't rubbish because of the graphics (not much control over the camera maybe). It was because you had no party in my humble opinion which limited the scope for tactical combat. Hell, with a free roaming camera you can recreate the BG perspective so what's the big deal?

We should be sending a petition demanding that they put as much effort creating a story as epic and setting as detailed as the existing BG games no matter what engine they use. That's the only real way to honour the series.

If not then well, I might just start my own petition insisting that Atari make BG3 text based. Now they really were the good old days?!?!?!

Elhioc · Post by **Elhioc** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:19 am

In my opinion the 2d areas tend to be more beautiful and detailed too than the 3d polygon block areas. Not to mention that controlling a character, let alone party is much simpler in 2d where you see things clear.

If they want to make a 3D game then dont name it baldur's gate. BG's are and should be 2D. They're only using the name to draw attention to failure-of-a-game anyway...

f not then well, I might just start my own petition insisting that Atari make BG3 text based. Now they really were the good old days?<snips the exclamation and question marks>

Hmz... text based... go ahead, I mud a lot, got nothing against text based games

edlington_j · Post by **edlington_j** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:37 am

Well Dungeon Siege provided settings beautiful enough for me. The Dragon Age screen shots look great. Dark Alliance was gorgeous so long as we're just talking presentation here.

The standard was text based. Then when a great developer came along and did a great job with a 2D graphics engine you loved it. If Atari get a great developer and they do a great job with a 3D graphics engine you might just love that too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm one of those people who still go back and play BG today. I'm on my don't know how manyth game. If BG3 gave me exactly the same depth experience with the Infinty engine again I'd be over the moon but let's not inhibit the developer's creativity by trying to deny them the best new tools.

Elhioc · Post by **Elhioc** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:49 am

I might have gotten a permanent 3d loathing from seeing how a grand saga like ultima ended sadly in that... that... undescribable 3d engine blasphemy in ultima IX. I can very well see same happening for BG saga.

me0w · Post by **me0w** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:59 am

"Dark Alliance was gorgeous" - Dark alliance had suitable graphics, and engine for the type of game it was. - The game was a hack and slash style beat 'em up. Not really Baldur's Gate. The Graphics yet were pretty enough, but you have to realise that can't work with a baldur's gate style game.

- If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I'm gonna sign this, although I'm sure it will do nothing. I think threats to the designers homes would do the trick though.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:14 am

Graphics engine has little to do with gamequality.

I can agree that I would want the view point to be "birds eye" semi-isometric view(instead of First Person View or "over-the-shoulder"), but the debate about 2D and 3D is rather useless in my oppinion.

Bad development and lack of focus on game content means much much (much) more then wether or not the game is 3D or 2D.

So I will certainly *not* support that pertition.

edlington_j · Post by **edlington_j** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:28 am

Xandax just made my point much more succinctly. Ta Xandax.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:52 am

I loved BG II just as it was. *sigh*

About 3D:

I agree with Xanday, it's not the main thing. I loved BG II just as it is (did I say that already?

), and think that NWN cannot be compared to it. BUT! I find myself playing NWN every evening, b/c it is so good to look at! I like it, and sometimes it's really useful to look at things from a different view (e.g. in close fighting or when trying to pick up objects). I wouldn't mind a game with a fantastic storyline like BG II (oh, how much I love it!) using beautiful graphics like NWN. That's all I want

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:35 am

TOEE wasn't a bad game because of the graphics. The graphics and combat system were the best parts of it. It was the story telling and simple things like missing item descriptions that were appalling making for an extremely shoddy experience overall. I for one would welcome putting that engine in the hands of Bioware or Black Isle with their ability to tell a story and eye for detail. BG and BG2 would have been even greater games with the TOEE graphics engine.

I completely agree with this, and my review, here on GameBanshee, reflects as much. What we need isn't a 2D graphics engine, but an emphasis on good writing and subtle design, with a target playing audience that is much larger than the 13-year-old boys they seem to think are the only ones playing these games. Planescape: Torment and BG2 are exemplars for this, not because they were 2D, but because the content behind those 2D images offered far more depth than you can find in the likes of KotoR, much less TOEE.

XazaX · Post by **XazaX** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:06 am

:d

ELHIOC you are a saint. Hill him.

Ares2382 · Post by **Ares2382** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:31 pm

To be honest I have yet to hear a good reason why people want to stay with 2D.

The two main arguments seem to be:
1. NWN, TOEE were bad and they were in 3D thus 3D must be bad.
2. If it ain't broke don't fix it argument.

Now my opinions on those are:
1. As Fable and a few other pointed out, it's not the 3D graphics that made the game bad, it's the fact that no effort was put into making any kind of deep story telling. Well incase of NWN some attempt was made but it didn't get very far. But you can't blame the graphics for that, blame the development team.

2. If we were to follow that guideline we would never have had BG1 & 2, we would still be playing text based games. Not that those were bad, but you have to admitt BG1 & 2 were pretty damn good as well.

Stop this silly arguments please. How about starting a petition asking Atari to put some effort into having a good story line with plenty of great dialogue, unique missions, and tactical combat system.

The great thing about progress is that if done right you can build on previous failures and come out with something great. Who ever Atari chooses to make this game for them should take a look at why games like NWN & TOEE failed and try to avoid making the same mistakes. But at the same time they have to take a look at what was good about those games(like TOEE combat system) and try to incorporate that into BG3.

CrownHead · Post by **CrownHead** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:31 pm

3d isn't necessarily a bad thing. Now I don't mean bg in particular, but a lot of great games have come in 3d form. Baldur's Gate however, doesn't need the switch at all. If your talking about fixing sub par things change the character models and the spell effects, but for god's sake, do not change the backgrounds.

Now I can say without hesitation that this game does not need any changing in the views or the landscape, because quite frankly, it's like your walking through a masterpiece when you play this game.

However, I can also say that character models and spell animations could always use improvement. I'm not saying to completely change them, it just might be nice to see more attack animations. It's something I hate to say, because I like the way the character's look, and I like the spell animations. I guess if you were to put on two different suits of platemail and they were to look different in shape, not just color, that would be cool too.

So in conclusion, if you gotta change something, change the character models and maybe the spell animations. Don't change the background and the maps, because to me they're already perfect. Years from now a 3d map from this period of time will look like it has bad textures and is unrealistic, but not Baldur's Gate. It always looks good no matter how long it's been out because it's not a 3d landscape, it's the best it can be already. Look at all the people who still like the graphics in BG right now, and then those same people at the same time would love to see the remake of FFVII have improved graphics.

Sorry, went off on a rant there. The only thing that could possibly need changing are the character models and the spell animations. Leave everything else the same.

Daveron · Post by **Daveron** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:36 am

I totally agree with crownhead I loved the detail the developers put into the Baldurs gate series backgrounds and i think they should leave them like they are instead of doing some stupid 3d setting where its impossible to see where you are going and the whole world looks like a messy bunch of polygons. If they were to do that i would not have the same feeling I had about the game when I went through Bg1 the first time and I would certinally not forget it.

I also agree that the spell affects in the Bg seiris looked a little bit dated and needed a huge overhaul (although the affects were probely good for there time). If Atari were to put any 3d in the game I would hope they update the spell affects and weapon and armour animations eg. like when you put on a suit of full plate armour it looks different from platemail armour. Also Some updated monster avartors and npc designs would be great as well.

All in all i signed the pention because I do not see any great need for Atari to change the 2d modeled background which we all know and love and turn it into some ugly blocky 3d landscape where camera navagating is impossible. Just my 2 cents though

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:51 am

The Baldur's Gate games aren't the Infinity Engine. To say that it wouldn't be BG without the IE makes no sense, to me, at least.

I'm not supporting the petition, as its rather silly and pointless. As long as it looks nice, its ok with me. The BG games didn't really have an "art" feel to their graphics, anyways (however, PS:T and IWD did, IMO). The only reason I would have for not supporting a 3D engine would be that my system probably won't run it very well.

How about a more intelligent petition, like one for story or combat? They're trying to choose between Turn-based and Real-time, why isn't anyone arguing that? How about a petition to ask the inclusion of people who know what they're doing, like makers of PS:T or the original BG games? The game is, after all, for the players. How about a petition asking for a different name (one I would probably sign)? How about a petition not asking for 2D, but simply graphics that are done RIGHT?

Daveron · Post by **Daveron** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:27 am

its not that I dont like 3d its just that if baldurs gate 3 is a 3d game it would not be baldurs gate 3. Also its not only the graphics im concerned about its the whole interface of the game. What if these "3d" graphics caused the game to become a spin of bg2 darkalliance now that would really SUCK.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:13 pm

What if they don't? Simply put, we don't know anything about the game to even begin to debate the merits of whatever engine they use.

Why won't it be BG3 if its 3D? The FF series had this change, the Legend of Zelda series had this change.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:28 pm

[QUOTE=Nightmare]<snip>
Why won't it be BG3 if its 3D? <snip>[/QUOTE]

I can only agree with this question. Why wouldn't it be BG3 if it is in 3D?

It wouldn't be BG3 if it were in first person view and real time and running around solo or with henchmen.
It would still be BG3 if done if the virtues of the ealier games were kept and it was now in 3D.

The graphics engine (2D or 3D) has nothing much to do with gamequality.

me0w · Post by **me0w** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:50 am

[QUOTE=Nightmare]Why won't it be BG3 if its 3D? The FF series had this change, the Legend of Zelda series had this change.[/QUOTE]

Ok, somehow FF pulled it off, but 3D ruined Zelda, it changed the whole game.

It was no longer Zelda, the incredibly difficult (the gameboy last level was near impossible) puzzle game, with a hint of fighting. It became some user friendly pretty peice of crap where you just went around slashing things.

The perspectives changed the whole way the puzzles worked, in short the series was ruined.

"Now I can say without hesitation that this game does not need any changing in the views or the landscape, because quite frankly, it's like your walking through a masterpiece when you play this game."

Crownhead just said it best.

You serverely risk ruining the game, and over what, small possible graphical inhancements.

"How about a more intelligent petition, like one for story or combat? They're trying to choose between Turn-based and Real-time, why isn't anyone arguing that? How about a petition to ask the inclusion of people who know what they're doing, like makers of PS:T or the original BG games? The game is, after all, for the players. How about a petition asking for a different name"

Well do it then, I think it would be great, and would sign all (apart from the good story one, thats just stupid, its like sending a petition saying "make the game great"... its worthless) If they make it turnbased it will be stupid, it will ruin the game, BG combat needs to be realtime with pause option.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:26 pm

[QUOTE=me0w]
Well do it then, I think it would be great, and would sign all (apart from the good story one, thats just stupid, its like sending a petition saying "make the game great"... its worthless) If they make it turnbased it will be stupid, it will ruin the game, BG combat needs to be realtime with pause option.[/QUOTE]

Isn't normal D&D turnbased, though? BG2 combat was turnbased, it just made it look like realtime. Maybe I'm wrong though, and misinterpreted what they meant in the article in PC Gamer...

And maybe its just me, but I enjoyed the 3D Zelda games for N64. The 3D enviroments still had many challenging puzzles...to this day I still have problems with some dungeons. 3D allowed for multi-level puzzles, as well, that can span the whole dungeon (like the central pillar in Snowhead from Majora's Mask).