GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=me0w]Like sheesh, 20 years off your life (I'm assuming) and your still levl1, you leave the place then in like 19 days you levl 4. Thats a pretty big difference.[/QUOTE]

HAHA!

[t-e-n]

Besides the cash influence, why you would call it BG3? Because it plays in style like a BG game. If it has a central character with joinable NPC’s that are interactive, it’s set in the FR’s, romances maybe, it is a large game and it allows you to have some freedom of exploration, and has a new epic story, then in my opinion it will play like a BG game. And that’s what they are probably trying to do. The BG games had a formula for success and it wasn’t just the story. Heck all the little things in the game was a strong point for me. Anyway, they’ll try to recreate that formula for success in BG3.

If it were another game, it would be like IWD, where they wanted it to be different from BG. So you could create your own party and the game was very linear etc… A new game set in the FR’s would try to be something new and different than NWN, IWD or the BG games. If it weren’t it would get slammed for being a replica of another game (BG or NWN for example). Whereas a BG3 will try to copy the formula of the BG games and make it better. Hence, why I’m glad they’re calling it BG3. Even though the story is over I still want a game that plays like the BG series and I hope I get it with BG3.

If it has a central character with joinable NPC’s that are interactive, it’s set in the FR’s, romances maybe, it is a large game and it allows you to have some freedom of exploration, and has a new epic story, then in my opinion it will play like a BG game.

Following that logic, any game with those qualities could just as well be called Ultima, Planescape: Torment (if we leave out the romances part), Gorasul, Anito, etc. In other words, these aren't qualities specific to the BG series, but ones that Bioware took as the general state of fantasy CRPGs. BG2 may have been the best-selling singleplayer CRPG to date, but that doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum.

PS:T was basicly Baldurs gate, it even used the infinity engine (didn't it) I found it pretty much the same (although some classes were different)

I dunno what to say about ultima because I never played it. (only played UO, untill that damn pub17 and the major changes making items matter so much *gets upset*)

Planescape: Torment wasn't basically Baldur's Gate: if you played it, the game felt like a totally different team was involved. The writing, characters, items, etc, had a flavor all their own. It used the Infinity Engine just as the IWD series did, which doesn't make the IWD games anything like the BG series. PS:T was actually far more sophisticated than BG1, and the Bioware team praised it to the skies. Credit for the interactions in BG2 went to PS:T, which was developed by Black Isle Studios.

You can play Ultima VII by simply purchasing it, then downloading and installing this. It's necessary because Origin Systems was using a proprietary memory manager at the time, which is not compatible with any version of Windows. You'll find a lot of features from the Bioware games in Ultima VI and VII (the latter is far more attractive).

[QUOTE=fable]
Following that logic, any game with those qualities could just as well be called Ultima, Planescape: Torment (if we leave out the romances part), Gorasul, Anito, etc. In other words, these aren't qualities specific to the BG series, but ones that Bioware took as the general state of fantasy CRPGs. BG2 may have been the best-selling singleplayer CRPG to date, but that doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum. [/QUOTE]


Sure, why not? You could include PS:T in that statement. But, not Ultima, as it’s not set in the Forgotten Realms, nor is it a d&d game. But PS:T could have been released as Baldurs Gate: Planescape and no one would have thought any differently of it. It’s d&d, even though it’s in the Planes and Sigil these areas are referenced in the Forgotten Realms setting, and it has joinable NPC’s that interact like BG. I feel it would have fit, no problem. PS:T feels a lot more like BG than IWD does. Also, I hate to say it but NWN could have been BG3 and it would have worked. Now I’m not saying that that would have been a great idea. LOL! But since the setting, rule set, etc… all of the similar characteristics between the games would have made sense if Bio decided to call NWN BG3.

I think in hindsight you say no way could PS:T have been a BG expansion. But, if it were released that way you would have never known the difference.

Now, if you’re a strong proponent of the same engine has to be used for a series, and then no you would disagree with my statement. But, BG is becoming a franchise like Ultima and you’ll have to accept that different engines will be used.

One thing I left out in my first statement. I feel for it to be a BG game, there must be some references to the setting, previous games and/or NPC’s. Now it could be something as small as just having Lord British to connect the games. Or it could be something as small as just telling the story that went before (Wizardry8) and then jump you into a new adventure. Or it could have many relationships, NPC’s, introduction that tells the story, some of the same joinable NPC’s, finding books telling about the Bhaalspawn story, visiting same areas like the Cloakwood mines, etc… It could be small or large, but there should be some reference to the series.

Also by including this interjection I would also apply this to Baldurs Gate: Planescape if it was released that way. Add a few references at what was going on with the Bhaalspawn story, or maybe add Minsc as a joinable NPC who’s searching for his space hamster who got lost in the planes, and that would have sufficed.

The Ultima’s and Wizardry’s have used this formula fine, there’s no reason why BG has to be restricted by the story.

[QUOTE=Ellester]Sure, why not? You could include PS:T in that statement. But, not Ultima, as it’s not set in the Forgotten Realms, nor is it a d&d game.[/quote]

Neither are most of the other games I mentioned in that group, including Gorasul and Anito--and several I could add. In other words, calling it a "BG game" as though the qualities you've mentioned above somehow define BG games specifically doesn't hold. These qualities of yours:

It has a central character with joinable NPC’s that are interactive.

Its set in the FR’s, romances maybe,

It is a large game

It allows you to have some freedom of exploration,

It has a new epic story,

...don't define what you've called "a BG game," but a fairly broad group, applying to too many other titles, both before and after the pair of BG games appeared.

I think in hindsight you say no way could PS:T have been a BG expansion. But, if it were released that way you would have never known the difference.

Sure I would, and judging from the comments over 4 years in various threads on GameBanshee, I think it's safe to say that quite a few PS:T players know how strongly it differs from the BGm series. PS:T has a unique writing style associated with its characters, and an entirely different mindset to the development of plot. It could never be mistaken for the work of the Bioware team, or vice versa. Or the IWD and BG series, either, though they use the same engine.

[QUOTE=fable]
Sure I would, and judging from the comments over 4 years in various threads on GameBanshee, I think it's safe to say that quite a few PS:T players know how strongly it differs from the BGm series. PS:T has a unique writing style associated with its character, and an entirely different mindset to the development of plot. It could never be mistaken for the work of the Bioware team, or vice versa. Or the IWD and BG series, either, though they use the same engine.[/QUOTE]
Just to point out when I’m using FR, I mean the Forgotten Realms, so it does knock out all the games that you mentioned that are not linked to the FR’s. The setting needs to be true before the story, IMO. IWD2 for example, the setting was more important than the continuation of a story.

And if you feel PS:T could not have been a BG game, then that’s fine, I respect your position. But, I still think that if they released it as Baldurs Gate: Planescape I wouldn’t have known the difference standing here today. The writing I don’t think makes a difference. If SOA had tons of dialog trees where I sat around talking to one character for 10 minutes, or just had a horrible story I still would have thought it was BG2.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on these points.

fair enough

[QUOTE=Ellester]Just to point out when I’m using FR, I mean the Forgotten Realms, so it does knock out all the games that you mentioned that are not linked to the FR’s. The setting needs to be true before the story, IMO. IWD2 for example, the setting was more important than the continuation of a story.

And if you feel PS:T could not have been a BG game, then that’s fine, I respect your position. But, I still think that if they released it as Baldurs Gate: Planescape I wouldn’t have known the difference standing here today. The writing I don’t think makes a difference. If SOA had tons of dialog trees where I sat around talking to one character for 10 minutes, or just had a horrible story I still would have thought it was BG2.[/QUOTE]
You just contradicted yourself. You knocked out the games that were not part of the 'Forgotten Realms', yet you say Planescape: Torment could be a BG expansion. Well, Planescape is a whole new campaign setting (as is Grey Hawk, Eberron, Rokugan, etc.)

The setting has only a minor factor in determining whether or not it can/should be connected to another franchise. If another game was released, based in Icewind Dale, would it be Icewind Dale 3? Or could it possibly be called something completely different? Even if the game play is almost the exact same (in that it is a dungeon crawl), does that mean it should be labeled under the same series?

As Fable has mentioned, your criteria for makes up the Baldur's Gate series is vague, and quite commonplace in many games. By the same logic, Ruin's of Myth Drannor could be included as a BG game (ignoring the fact it was made by a seperate company), as it includes many of the same criteria you so listed, yet has no actual connection to the Baldur's Gate series at all.

What made the Baldur's Gate series what it was, was the connection established by the playable characters and the story arc. The only way to effectively, and legitmately make a BG3, is to make the game a prequl, somehow involving the Bhaalspawn, or those closely related to the Bhaalspawn (which is complelely plausible).

[QUOTE=Aegis]You just contradicted yourself. You knocked out the games that were not part of the 'Forgotten Realms', yet you say Planescape: Torment could be a BG expansion. Well, Planescape is a whole new campaign setting (as is Grey Hawk, Eberron, Rokugan, etc.)
[/QUOTE]
Sigil and all the planes are the same for the FR’s as they are for the Planescape setting. Loth still lives on the same plane, Blood Wars are happening, etc… that’s why it would work. The Hordes of the Underdark for NWN proved that this is possible in a Forgotten Realms setting.

[QUOTE=Aegis]
As Fable has mentioned, your criteria for makes up the Baldur's Gate series is vague, and quite commonplace in many games. By the same logic, Ruin's of Myth Drannor could be included as a BG game (ignoring the fact it was made by a seperate company), as it includes many of the same criteria you so listed, yet has no actual connection to the Baldur's Gate series at all.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it could have been. That is the point, and this is where I differ from many. I see Baldurs Gate as a franchise, whereas many only see the games as the Bhaalspawn story. I see the two Dark Alliance games and the new cell phone game all part of the Baldurs Gate franchise. In fact I felt the Dark Alliance games proved that the bhalspawn story didn’t need to be part of the Baldurs Gate franchise.

If they had chosen to use POR2 as a Baldurs Gate game it would have worked in my book. And, yes the IWD games could have been part of the Baldurs Gate franchise if they wanted because of the rules and setting. If IWD was released as Baldurs Gate: Dungeon Crawl I would have always has thought it to be a Baldurs Gate game.

I guess I’m old school where Ultima and Wizardry had so many radical changes through the years, but the setting was always the same or related, that’s what connected them. I feel Baldurs Gate is like these franchises, whereas many other feel that BG is only the story. In fact many ignore the Dark Alliance games and the new cell phone game, saying they’re not BG games. Well in my book they are, it’s all part of one big happy franchise. That’s what popularity brings.

Maybe you start a new charecter who goes up to see your old charecter at I don't know... a book sighning at Baldur's Gate and is umm attacked by dopple gangers and goblins. So basically he kills the dopple gangers and you kill the goblins or your old PC just kills them all or is killed. So after the whole attack he or she tells you to go find out whoever is doing this, and an adventure unfolds cause maybe some other bhaal spawns had children who were classified as bhaal swawns. Hey it's just a guess.

if it's going to be a prequel based on the origin of the city of Baldurs Gate, or the origin of the bhaalspawn, why not call it something like

Baldurs Gate: Origins

?

considering that BG3 is just a place-holder name until a real name is decided upon, some of yall are getting yer panties twisted over nuthin.

V***V

Will the BG3 be a 3D rpg game?
Will the BG3 continue using Infinity Engineer?
Will the BG3 say bhaal' kid story?

I don't know.
I think BG2-tob was over in bg all

Well hopefully they learned there lessons from the disaster of Temple of Elemental Evil. The game is buggy and half broken. And what shame Temple of Elemental Evil was a great AD&D 1st edition module. It had lots of potential. But knowing some game publishers it will get dumbed down and be marketed to kids. One of the alluring aspects of the BG series was it was marketed towards adults and not the kids. Anymore games are market towards children which is nice but there are adults who play computer games.

Well as a AD&D fan I do not like the 3rd edition rules. I still can't figure why some idiot game designer who would take something that defined rpg games and change it. So anymore I refuse to play AD&D games based on 3rd edition rules. The reason is that its not the same game as it was before.

You can bet your bottom dollar (or pound/krona/clam shell) that Trokia will not be developing BG3. So whatever lessons were learnt from ToEE will go unlearned by the BG development team. And besides, judging by the state of VtM:Bloodlines when released, Troika didn't learn a thing from ToEE.

Anyway, the problem wasn't Troika's interpretation of the module (I used the written module as a spoiler, they were very close in all respects), but the sheer amount of bugs and defects within the product.

Let me just say that you are missing out in passing 3rd Ed over. I've been playing ADnD since it first came out, and 3rd Ed is - by far - the easiest, most enjoyable and least buggy version of the rules to come out. 1st Ed was great, but it had major problems. 2nd Ed was generally poor. 3rd Ed is a fantastic improvement over both. If you want to discuss this further, come to the DnD forum, as this is off-topic for this particular forum.

Cheers,
TGHO

[QUOTE=Paranitis][Example about Back to the future][/QUOTE]
Back to the Future is called Back to the future because Marty goes to the past and after that he goes back to the future.