Why is BG3 called BG at all?

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by 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.

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).

[Ellester]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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.

[Ellester]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Cowled Kensai]

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.

[LotharBot]

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

?

[vesselle]

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

[asure]

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

[smithrd3512]

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.

[The Great Hairy]

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

[Fer'or]

Originally Posted by Paranitis

[Example about Back to the future]

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.

[Curry]

Originally Posted by Fer'or

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.

Well maybe we go back to BG in BG3