Atari talks of more BG and more NWN!

[Domi]

Which game EVER cared about what you've done in the previous campaign?

[Icendoan]

BG1, cause there wasn't one.

 

Icen

[Lord Ernie]

They don't really NEED to answer those questions at all, really. I mean, the Bhaalspawn is in Tethyr during ToB, and after that, well... they could leave it somewhat vague. Or they could do a similar solution to how Obsidian did things in Kotor 2: at the beginning of the game, you talk to another character about this, and through the dialogue you basically establish what happened (ascension yes/no, what party members, etc). I just think that would allow for more interesting things (i.e. having Nalia/Valygar on the Council of Six, Jaheira in charge of the Harpers, etc.)... alternatively, leave the main NPC's from BG2 out, and only use secondary ones, so you don't clash with the epilogues.

[Domi]

It feels a bit like Imoen running the Theive's guild in NWN1... I know there is a nostalgic value in it, but I dunno, I'd rather play a new game in a new setting. But I think I said it before, lol!

[Sorrow]

A Baldur's Gate 3 set in Baldur's Gate in new forgotten realms would be good for me.

I don't like the idea of seeing anyone from BG1&2, though.

 

It doesn't have to be epic. More like low-level adventures dealing with consequences of the spell plague and other changes.

[Icendoan]

It might as well not be called BG, then, and have it's own name, were it to be so far removed from the original series.

 

Heck, a DnD MMO might not be too far off the mark one of these days. I guess, as long as you had an easy area builder and so on, that sort of thing could be fun.

 

Icen

[Sorrow]

It might as well not be called BG, then, and have it's own name, were it to be so far removed from the original series.

IMO it's "BG2" and "BG2:ToB" that shouldn't be called BG as their action doesn't happen in Baldur's Gate.

[Icendoan]

Yeah, well, it is a direct continuation of the same story, so it would be better as a sequel. If you had the aftermath of BG:ToB, but no relevance to either Baldur's Gate or your favourite Bhaalspawn, why should that be called BG?

 

Icen

[Sorrow]

Because it's action happens in Baldur's Gate ?

[Twani]

Well, there is a D&D MMO. The game is 'fun' enough, but it pays no attention to the setting what-so-ever. For people who absolutely despise Eberron, I suppose that's a 'who cares' thing, but my soft spot for that setting (thank you, at least a semblance of internal consistency!) makes me cringe.

 

In 4E Realms, we have Neverwinter basically destroyed, Waterdeep no longer as much of a focus point, and Baldur's Gate one of the biggest and most important cities in the new realms. A game set in it makes sense and would probably be interesting enough, but calling it BGIII seems like it would just be shooting themselves in the foot- IMO. To the BG fans, it wouldn't be BG enough (likely requiring 4E rules/setting), and associating it with BG would- despite how much we here love the game- likely cause people to be comparing it to games incredibly old by crazy modern standards... as well as those ridiculous console games. Better to start over, and try to create a new series, then drag out the poor BG saga/brandname even more.

[Sorrow]

Personally, I would see Baldur's Gate III as a return to the roots of the series - adventures centred around the city of Baldur's Gate and playing on relatively sane power levels. As long as they would do it right, of course.

 

To me, BGII was much more detached from BGI than a game with the same name should be - it was centred around another big city, it ignored my choices from previous game, it lacked the free exploration and sightseeing present in some areas, it was overpowered, etc.

ToB was even worse - a cheap Icewind Dale clone with ridiculous power levels.

[-JR-]

Personally, I would see Baldur's Gate III as a return to the roots of the series - adventures centred around the city of Baldur's Gate and playing on relatively sane power levels. As long as they would do it right, of course.

I couldn't agree more with this. Sequels to Baldur's Gate II, while important, have a much better life in our minds than a fourth edition oriented company could give them.

 

To me, BGII was much more detached from BGI than a game with the same name should be - it was centred around another big city, it ignored my choices from previous game, it lacked the free exploration and sightseeing present in some areas, it was overpowered, etc.

ToB was even worse - a cheap Icewind Dale clone with ridiculous power levels.

I agree that the name was more detatched from the game than it should be, but I think Shadows of Amn stands as a valid sequel (though I admit that it took me years to reach this mindset). I liked the ridiculously high powerlevels, kind of served to make the player's head spin a bit the same way the character's must have been with the discovery that they were the child of the god of freakin' murder. I think you're right though, and I don't think I'd like to see it again.. Lower level things have always stood out to me as particularly valid and grounded, and I think the Icewind Dales jumped the gun when they had all hell break loose (literally at at least one point if I remember right).

[Sorrow]

I agree that the name was more detatched from the game than it should be, but I think Shadows of Amn stands as a valid sequel (though I admit that it took me years to reach this mindset).

Well, I actually have problems with playing BG1 and BG2 as the same series - BG1 was a standard fantasy game and BG2 slid into dungeonpunk. I played BG2 much more, though. Not to mention the part when I make a lot of decisions in BG1 and then it turns out that BG2 is a game that isn't a direct sequel, but rather a separate "what would happen if <CHARNAME> would have Imoen, Khalid, Jaheira, Dynaheir and Minsc in party and none of the cNPCs died" story...

 

I liked the ridiculously high powerlevels, kind of served to make the player's head spin a bit the same way the character's must have been with the discovery that they were the child of the god of freakin' murder.

I'd agree with you on that if the developers didn't level-up everything else - my main problem with BG2 isn't that PC is extremely powerful, but that Realms are suddenly full of level 8 nameless soldiers and city guards, level 8/8 nameless thugs, super-NPCs, super magical items, etc.

It doesn't really feel like being a demi-god among men.

 

Lower level things have always stood out to me as particularly valid and grounded, and I think the Icewind Dales jumped the gun when they had all hell break loose (literally at at least one point if I remember right).

Generally, weapon/spell damage and AC is better balanced towards very low levels than towards medium and high levels.

In AD&D, ordinary soldiers, guards, thugs, etc. are level 0 fighters. Level 1-2 fighter is more like a knight or other elite soldier type.

So, low level adventures are more "natural".

 

I never finished ID - it got too tiring for me after/in the elven fortress thing.