GameBanshee Forums

Hey all, i cant find any information but ive seen plenty of rumors that BG 3 will be out soon (unless im daft)

So i was thinking on what engin they were going to make it with..

The best part about BG2 was that the story line was deep and intense, the characters were well voice acted and had excellently polished story lines and interaction, the Music was nothing short of amazing, the game play was Solid, dynamic and easy to use and finally it was able to deliver the most stunning 2d Graphical visuals most people have ever seen.

I was, and still am, literally hooked on BG. i still talk about it as the best game of all time with my freinds... but thats another story.

As all things do, .. im guessing a 3rd version of BG will step into the highly demanded visual graphics world of 3d engins... which if you ask me dont "always" look better or are more immersive. But lets face it, the age of 2d graphics is all but dated. But i had an idea while playing another game the other day.

If anyone has ever played "titan quest", they might know where i am going with this. Titan quests game play is structured more like Diablos (and for a 3d version of the diablo gamestyle looks pretty darn solid). but i was wondering if the stable feel and awesome graphics of TQ could be applied as a base engin for a possible future production of a BG3?

The combat systems and gameplay ofcourse would have to be changed. This is NOT a post about butchering BG and turning it into TQ. I just wouldnt mind seeing BG evolve onto a similar engin with the graphics, animations and possible visual effects that TQ boasts. This is feel could lend a better feel to things than a (heavens forbid) neverwinter nights style of gameplay.

I also think for consistancys sake they should remain true to Second Edition. Just because Third and Fourth are out now, doesnt mean second isnt still valid. BG is about second ed. Updateing to 3rd or 4th changes the gameplay completely.. This is just my two cents however. Personally i would hope NEVER to see a dragon born or common tieflings wondering about the streets.. as i loved the gritty "realistic" feel of BG's city portrail. not the high fantasy modern "cool" image that 4th ed is currently marketing to steal back world of warcraft players.

Anyway this is just my opinion, and i came here to hear some others.

What are all your thoughts?

Fend out.

There's been rumours for about 6 years now of it being made, let alone "out soon"...definitely not. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if a BG3 comes out in the next couple of years, and if it does it'll be based on the (awful-looking) 4th edition rules and from completely selfish (commercial) reasons and it'll likely suck.

Rhûn wrote:There's been rumours for about 6 years now of it being made, let alone "out soon"...definitely not. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if a BG3 comes out in the next couple of years, and if it does it'll be based on the (awful-looking) 4th edition rules and from completely selfish (commercial) reasons and it'll likely suck.

We can hope that it does not come out. And I totally agree with you on 4e - it really is horrible and here I thought it would not get worse with 3e but WotC sure out did themselves with 4e - a whole bunch new rules - that is really horrible and atrocious. I will stick with 2e.

some sort of sequel

Hey,

I don't think there'll ever be a game as good as BG 1 and 2, however, a part 3 wound't be a bad idea. Ofcourse there is still a large group of fans for the same sort of games. I do hope that we can play BG 3 one day.

The biggest concern I've got is that it will be a sequel to BG2 wich I wouldn't like. I think it was a mistake to make you start at level .. in BG2, it took away part of the concerns you had about dieing quickly. Somehow it made the first 3 chapters to easy for me, although after you enter the underdark the tension is back.

BG 3 should start at point blanck and have a level cap at 40 or something like that.

How could it be a mistake to make you start at the level you would have been when you finished BG1? Assuming you hadn't disabled the level cap that is, if you had then you actually start out at a lower level. You do realise BG2 was supposed to be a continuation of BG! and not a completely seperate game?

The start can be quite hard depending on what happened in BG1, if you play acordingly. The first time through I didn't take Jaheira, Imoen or Minsc as all had died in BG1 (well apart from Jaheira who I'd never met) and therefore shouldn't have been available.

galraen wrote:How could it be a mistake to make you start at the level you would have been when you finished BG1? Assuming you hadn't disabled the level cap that is, if you had then you actually start out at a lower level. You do realise BG2 was supposed to be a continuation of BG! and not a completely seperate game?

The start can be quite hard depending on what happened in BG1, if you play acordingly. The first time through I didn't take Jaheira, Imoen or Minsc as all had died in BG1 (well apart from Jaheira who I'd never met) and therefore shouldn't have been available.

I meen that it would not be good to start at level 40 in the beginning of BG3, this should be a seperated game. I've got two reasons for that:

1. The Start of BG1 is much less boring then the start of BG2
2. If you start at level 40, you would have to make the game full of demi-liches, dragons etc. It would be to hard for new players to understand the way to play BG.

Sorry, I misunderstood jouke1988.

PS I actually agree that starting at level 40 would be daft, yet another reason why the series should be left alone. The series has ended, let it rest in peace.