PC Gamer has some information on BG 3

[Skuld]

@ meow: I find it highly unlikely that it'll be set in the time when all the gods were made mortal, because wouldn't that require everyone to be ridiculously high levels? And also as "cool" as it sounds I wouldn't wanna play as a god. That whole concept, providing you're playing at ridiculously high levels, goes totally against most CRPGs and even action rpgs. And by ancestors I think you're more likely to see ancestors of khalid, jaheira, montaron, and xzar because they're members of longstanding organizations within the realms. I'd think you're less likely to see ancestors of say minsc, dynaheir, edwin, sharteel, and viconia to name a few. Although I can see them adding a darkelf just for the sake of having one in the game.

[moltovir]

I don't know why, but i've always wanted to play Elminster in his young years, when he was still an apprentice mage and not the uberpower Chosen of Mystra he is now. But alot of players like fighter-types, so i don't think this idea has even the slightest chance of working out

@me0w: what you say is that you want to play as the necromancer Cyric who intends to be a god? Sounds too much like ToB to me.

[Ares2382]

I don't think moving to 3D is a bad thing. I mean it's how the entire game is put together that will determine if it's good or bad. Actually what I hope is that the game will look like Temple of Elemental Evil, but that's not likely going to happen. What would be even better if the combat system in BG3 was similar to TOEE, add to that a great storyline with plenty of dialogue and party interaction and you will have one of the greatest games of all time, possibly better then BG2(and maybe better then Planescape:Torment). But it's too early to say anything right now, this game is far away from being coming out, IF it's even coming out.

[UncleScratchy]

Originally Posted by me0w

heh, sorry, was angry. I really don't like them ruining games. (I consider 3d ruining) I just hated NWN so much, it was a poor poor game, henchmen system was so ****. 3d just reminds me of that, and makes it no longer BG...

I'm in me0w's camp on this one. I have a strong feeling that a 3D engine will make BG3 another NWN disaster. 3D probably means you won't be able to make a 6 person party - so I predict its going to be more of a MW type solo action game. My other fear is that it will end up becoming another massive multiplayer on-line type game. The isometric view allows for party building and game play that doesn't require obscene hi-end system requirements. I don't see that happening with 3D. I don't have a good feeling about this endeavor, it sounds like it might be screwed up from the get go. I'd rather forgo the 3D and have a game that has a good story line, interesting characters, sensible equipment, relatively simple game controls and reasonable system requirements (I can't even run the PC Gamer demo disk games on my 2 yr old Pentium 4 system because of the rediculous minimum system requirements the game makers are using).

[CrownHead]

Originally Posted by me0w

"Ancestors" of certain characters, now I pray this wont be like Minsc's and Edwin's ancestors, because that would be hardcore cheesy. However I have a feeling, quite strong that were gonna up at with the time when all the gods were made mortal, and yo' daddy Mr Bhaal is gonna die, and I guess you play as him, or as the person who slays him, or something like that, thats what I'm thinking... It seems quite likely, as they said specificly characters ancestors..

Unfortunately, this probably won't happen. If I remember correctly it was Cyric who murdered Bhaal in an ambush on a bridge. Not sure about the second part of that, but I do know that it was Cyric.

I'm pretty sure you won't play as Bhaal either because when the gods were made mortal, they were still godlike in power, and starting out a game at level 30 isn't gonna get much positive feedback from gamers. And Bhaal was an Assassin/Fighter if I remember correctly, so you wouldn't get a chance to choose his class either.

On a side note you probably are right about the era in which the game takes place.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by UncleScratchy

I'm in me0w's camp on this one. I have a strong feeling that a 3D engine will make BG3 another NWN disaster. 3D probably means you won't be able to make a 6 person party - so I predict its going to be more of a MW type solo action game. My other fear is that it will end up becoming another massive multiplayer on-line type game. The isometric view allows for party building and game play that doesn't require obscene hi-end system requirements. I don't see that happening with 3D. I don't have a good feeling about this endeavor, it sounds like it might be screwed up from the get go. I'd rather forgo the 3D and have a game that has a good story line, interesting characters, sensible equipment, relatively simple game controls and reasonable system requirements (I can't even run the PC Gamer demo disk games on my 2 yr old Pentium 4 system because of the rediculous minimum system requirements the game makers are using).

Well- you can certainly have isometric viewpoint in a 3D graphics engine as well as you can in 2D.
And when thinking of that this game is way into the future (if even it is at all) - I think it would be a little to early to worry about systems requierment for the game.
If we calculate the game comes out in 2007/2008 (I doubt Atari would want it competing with NwN2), we are looking at some way different system specs for the gaming computer.

Furthermore - the usage of 3D graphics needs not take away from the story and gameplay. Unfortunally - many developers are going to much overboard with graphics and not careing enough about the story - but the two are not neasecarily mutal exlusive. Neither is 2D equal to a good story either.
They need to focus on a good story under any circumstances.

However - your fears are valid, and I share (some of) them on some plane eventhough the game hasn't been announced - but I do not instantly blame 3D graphics for all the woes causing bad gamestories and gameplay. I blame nearsighted developers and publishers thinking to much about the bottom line and release dates.

3D graphics aren't pandora's box.

[Skuld]

But when something's gotta give the powers that be will choose to put more emphasis on their sexy 3D graphics than storyline and depth of play. We should all be well aware of that by now.

[Xandax]

And that is because of developers/publishers giving more emphasizem on the release date and the bottom line.

No where does it state that a game can't have good (3D) graphics and a good storyline and gameplay.

We can agree that games should have good stories and gameplay, and that it is often not produced in todays games. However, that is not solely depending on whether or not the game has 2D or 3D graphics. We have seen just as many 2D games with lousy gameplay.

[Skuld]

But most of those were lousy games altogether. I know it's not solely dependent on what type of graphics a game has. It's dependent what kind of constraints the publishers put on the dev team.

[Aegis]

I'm generally trying to stay out of this discussion, simply to avoid the 2D vs. 3D argument going on. Frankly, neither make a game.

Anyway, my point in this post. Did anyone think that perhaps BG3, if it comes out (Which I truly hope it does not) would more than likely deal with the story of Gorian 'rescuing' a child of Bhaal from a high priestess, the initial story to the whole child of Bhaal saga. With that in mind, the reoccuring characters would more than likely end up being Jaheira and Khalid. Just a thought, though.

[Skuld]

As I've said before (maybe not in this thread) the NPC's you'd most likely see would be Khalid, Jaheira, Montaron, and Xzar because of their associations with longstanding organizations. The story line you propose however would also put severely limitations on character creation. And if the story will indeed take place way before hand with descendents of previous NPCs I would think that no one would be coming back.

[moltovir]

I don't understand why everyone is so scared of 3D... 3D can give a game more depth and more detail. A party-game based is perfectly possible in 3D (@UncleScratchy: i wouldn't call NWN a disaster, it was a good game, lots of people thought it was bad because it wasn't "BG in 3D"). Also 3D makes lots of character animations possible. In BG, your characters have perhaps 2-3 combat moves, but in NWN you actually see fighters hit and parry. It would also add a whole new dimension to thievery, if you can actually scale walls or hang on ceilings to avoid guards and do some nice classic burglary. Adding a new dimension (literally) to a game makes so many new possibilities, it would be unwise to ignore those and just make a BG2 copy. 3D can't kill a game, bad developer choices or greedy publishers can. And, standing still is going backwards

[Skuld]

We all know 3D can give a game a great sense of depth, and if done well a great game of BG caliber could be spawned from it. But from what we've seen, what the BG name requires a game to be(in the eyes of many) probably won't happen in 3D. Sure it would be wonderful to see it in 3D with all of a thieves abilities coming alive and not just being useless numbers. Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see, and since I've heard that NWN is slated for 2006 it'll be some time before we see BGIII.

[LastManStanding]

I would like to see it stay true to the origonal bg games maybe slightly improved graghics but keep it overhead. I not impressed with 3rd and first person rpgs like marrow wind and Kotor I liked kotor but i wouldn't want to see bg in that format.

and also i would like the option to have turn based or realtime gameplay.
Becouse i found it is harder to use mages in real time and they're easier yo use in turn based games like FF10

also maybe try to add some epic battles on a large scale like you have tons of allies and there are overwelming numbers of enemies

Also I didn't like the XP cap in the original bg games I would rather have a more authintic d&d experience

[iamweaver]

If BG3 ends up (as most of us hope) a optionally-controlled party tactical game, then it really has to be turn-based, rather than RTS, as it is difficult for the average game player to control multiple characters to the level of detail required.

also maybe try to add some epic battles

The real problem here is that this again would probably require you to manually control most of the characters - and this game is an RPG, not a turn-based tactical wargame. The fanbase is not identical, and many RPGers would grind their teeth at having to manually control 50 characters for each round of a 40-round battle. This is *not* a good way to add gameplay hours, IMO

Also I didn't like the XP cap in the original bg games I would rather have a more authintic d&d experience

How does placing an XP camp on the game make it a non-authentic D&D experience? A billion years ago, when I played D&D (not even AD&D - I have been "out of the loop" for a bit ), the DM (nowadays, you call 'em GMs? is that Game Master?) would try to make sure the encounters were tailored, more or less, to the character's levels. I just kinda figured the XP cap was supposed to keep folks from "ruining" the game by cheesing their way to a boring level. Course, IMO, if a player wants level forever, I guess they can - it's their game, after all! In "real" AD&D, though, are there EXP limits? In pen & paper games, are their any players outside of young teenagers who really play level 100 Wizards and such?