BG III

Remove all ads!

I think "prequel" in this case means "set before the events in", not necessarily related to the events of BG1 (just like IWD was a "prequel" to BG1). I can think of three reasons why they'd keep the same title:
1) exploiting a successful name (happens all the time - see Fallout 3)
2) licensing issues (you already have the rights to publish under the name, so instead of purchasing a new license you use the same one and publish a completely different game - see Jefferson)
3) the game is set in the city of Baldur's Gate

I'm pretty damn sure the game will have you start as level 1 chatacter(s). I'm not setting my hopes too high (with the exception of BG2, I have yet to find a sequel that surpassed the original), but it might be a good game after all (fingers crossed and all that)

If they actually go and set it during the Time of Troubles, it could be interesting indeed...

 

Without a doubt I think if they are to continue the BG series it should be about the Bhaalspawn Saga and focused on Gorion's Ward. That said, I'm not quite sure how they could manage it with the way ToB is ended , even if the writers assume you chose to stay mortal. All the NPCs were given epilogues to tell you what happened after the end, so you'd either have to ditch the non-love-interests or just ignore the original ending.

As for the way you deal with initial level, I'd say start at 15. 3.5 rules can be overwhelming for novices and the recommended levelup will probably suck. If your upset at not being able to start at your 24th level Fighter/27th level Thief, do remember that to stay mortal you had to give up your taint, a great potion of your power. If that won't cause a loss of experience, I don't know what will.

 

i actually wouldn't mind starting with/as a different character. i dont wanna have to start from level 1 though. after casting level 9 spells, going back to 1 magic missile would be SOMEWHAT of a step down. they could have the new protagonist as a midlevel (7 or 8, like BG2) and create the story from there. but if they do it in 3d, i dunno if ill bother with this. after NWN i refuse to play games like these on 3d.

oh. my. god. if they use THAT old chesnut im never going to support any FR based games ever again... yerg, what a thought hehe.

 

I don't mind starting at level 1 again. High level characters right off the bat would be a bit of a joke.

 

I agree. Level one characters are fine. It adds... simplicity to the game. I enjoyed having to struggle to save enough money to buy a suit of plate armor rather than it being chump change.

 

Yeah...having to work for your power makes you appreciate it. It would be awesome if you could play your characters from lvl 1 all the way to lvl 40...hehe...that WOULD be awesome.

Heck, I'd buy it just for the powergaming goodness. Of course, as long as its not a jumped up version of Dark Alliance 3.l

 

Okay, I know you have all been waiting for it, so here it is. My opinion/idea.

Lets see. BGII assumed that you played through BGI with Charname, Minsc, Dynahier, Khalid, Jaheria and Imoen. So I don't think it is a stretch if BGIII assumes you played with a certain party.

So, maybe they assume you play through with Charname, Minsc, Jaheria and Imoen plus Aerie and Anomen.

Therefore, BGIII could start you off as the child of Charname and Aerie or Charname and Anomen, at level one, with some whirlwind adventure.

Now, the way I see around this is that when you decided to stay mortal, the energy from you child that Aerie has given birth too, or the child of Anomen's that you are carrying(*), it taken away. Now because of the age of the child (or fetus), the sudden withdrawl of energy left them in a state of flux. When the flux is over, the child may not be the same race as the parents.

Ergo, you get to choose what your race is.

(*) Now, I've never romanced Anomen, so I don't know if there is a script about Charname having his baby in the oven, but if not, artistic licence.

 

That's pretty far fetched Jaguar

I actually don't want to see a Baldur's Gate III because the plot will either have nothing to do with the Bhaal saga or if it does it will be so forced that you'll roll your eyes out of their sockets.

Throne of Bhaal finished the Baldur's Gate series of games so well and with such finality I don't see how there could be a Baldur's Gate III. Why can't they call it something different and actually try to make a good game without falling upon past successes? You know... something called 'credibility'.

 

this would probably be against the whole concept of putting up a BG3 from a marketing point of view. I douct they see it as "I've got a great idea for a BG3 game", but rather "People would play a BG3 right? Tell someone to throw something together." heh.

Also, in defense of my starting charname at midlevel, because you wont be having the same character, this person could be totally unaware of their role in the saga until it was forced on them (not unlike Sarevok killing Gorion in BG1 i'll admit). Besides, as I said, after casting level 9 spells i dont think i could handle being reduced to 1 magic missile and "rare" +1 weapons.. unless the levelling up system is accelerated or the game is so comprehensive that they allow you to get from level 1-40. Doubt it though.

 

Hmmm I'm lazy when is this game expected to come out?
I won't mind if BG3 has nothing to do with BG, after all hey it's just two words people, and if they make a big FR setting RPG that is well done, they can call it Bush in communist Russia for all I care...
Calling it BG3 will just raise the sales, which could be good because more people will buy a wonderful game.
I don't mind having to start over at lvl 1 but I don't want to hit the cap at lvl 7/8 as in BGI
I want an adventure that will literally take me all over Faerun, I want NPC's that will not over banter, but even complain and/or get penalties if I (for example) take a Kara-Tur-ian swordsmaster NPC to the Frozen North because he has trouble with the climate.
I want the PC to be able to get married, and possibly become or make a NPC pregnant.
I want to be able to acquire real estate, and maybe even engage in politics.
I won't mind a 3D view but it has to be done carefully and when comparing NWN to BGII graphically I much preferred BGII.
Lastly, I'd *really* like the underdark to be in it, and well done too - the underdark is pretty much the easiest to screw up, but also easily has the highest coolness factor if done well...

 

If its made in 3d I will definetly not buy it, infact I think we should send in a protest list, and make them make the game in the same style as BG 2 or IwD II

 

@Bahir
I'm with you there.

they did this already in BG2 (after a fashion) by making you steward of de'arnise keep. it was pretty boring imo because it wasn't important to the development of the main storyline. but maybe my inherent dislike for politics is just coloring my opinion :/

 

I'd actually quite enjoy a prequel, just to see if they can get an interesting storyline from it.

 

What is so bad about 3d Bahir? With 3d you aquire better graphics, a more easily modified engine (NWN Toolkit anyone?), more animations and you allow for extra little tid-bits such as capes on characters, wind effects, greater dietail and so forth.

They could use the NWN engine and spruce it up a bit for party oriented single player. In my opinion the NWN engine was brilliant simply because of the Ctrl and Shift menus that allowed your own mix of weapon changes and quickspell slots.

 

will you be able to enlist NPC's as a party? or will it be a la NWN where you can only have 1 sidekick?

 

If it doesn't allow 5 NPCs + the PC then it won't be Baldur's Gate...

 

No, you dont. Take a look at NwN or Morrowind. The graphics sucks.

Im the kind of guy who grew up with RPGs with a fixed view, my first RPG was Fallout 2 and Icewind Dale and Baldurs Gate quickly followed. Any 3d game with a mobile view (even the BG games at PS2 [ok, they are 100% hack n' slash]) simply does not feel like a RPG, and I need that feeling.
With 3d graphics I get the feeling Im playing a game like Tomb Raider, which I hate.
To sum it up:
2d=true RPG - feeling
3d=fake RPG - no feeling

 

I suppose if you wanted to keep at least slightly in line with the bhaalspawn trilogy, then you could set it during the time of troubles...

Before the obvious responce comes up, yes I KNOW Bhaalspawn saga does NOT = Time Of troubles, but it's just one of an infinite amount of ideas.

Also, regarding whether or not it will be a shameless cash in, we may as well wait until we see
who's actually developing it. If it's Obsidian and co <although this is unlikely given that they have KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 in the works> or indeed, anyone who was involved with the original <i.e taking on David Gaider as advisor>, then they will probably do what they can to take it further.

OTOH, if they farm it out to a start up / dying developer, then we must lose all help, and go hurl ourselves into the Abyss to give Charname a little visit.

 

Well, with that in mind, I sure hope they don't add too many cut-scenes that are cool when you first see them, but get old and boring very quickly (chapter 1 of BG 2 comes to mind), that you can't skip by pressing the "any key".

I do hope that they will keep the isometric perspective view, since that is what most of us are used to, but they should have an option for faster computers that offers zoom, fly-by, and 1st person perspective so you can "see the fear in the orc's eye as you blast him with a fireball".

They should offer a basic way of looking at the game (isometric), but also offer something that will bring ATI's and nVidia's newer cards to their knees!