What should be the hardest creature in BGIII if it is developed. I mean we've had dragons, demi lich's, demogorgon, demons out the bung. Plus several other very tough opponents. What next?

Goblins. Especialy their leader, Otto, who is a level 50 sorcerer with his own custom made spells. That would be SO cool

AO. Afterall what's god to someone who is a god himself. Yes that's right! Let BG3 be the tale of the bastard child-become-god wage his war against other gods, ultimately rising in power to defeat AO himself. It's all impossible of course but hey, what's impossible if not just another challenge?

Considering that according to the rumours BG3 will be a prequel, you will very likely start with characters at level 1 again, so I doubt you'll see anything much previously unseen.

A prequel? That means you would be playing as a child (and ultimatly, you wouldnt be able to gain levels because you start bg1 as level 1)

A prequel? What adventures could you possibly have done before bg1?


Sounds like a idiotic idea. They should make a sequel, after you chose NOT to become a god instead. Or possibly, following the life of ANOTHER child of Bhall, or someone conected to Bhallspawns.

Yes, I would suggest that you might be playing a DIFFERENT character. Unless it was all a dream......

I would really hate starting at level 1 again considering all we went through with bg, going from lvl 1 to lvl 30+ , character development would pretty much be the same then in bg3 depending how big the game is(and what the xp cap is at).

What I wanna see is epic characters.

A prequel sounds a little.. boring, what would be so intruging about that?

The way I see it the 2 main options for me is:

1. You are a god, this is a pretty no-no since beeing a god would probably make your life very strange and what would you do all day?

2. second and probably the most interesting, you said no to beeing a god, you continue your travels, try to settle down maybe? marry Jahiera? But your proably a very famous person by now.. and there is no peace for a child of bhaal. What awaits you now? The Planes, the bloodwar?

I actually hopes it has nothing to do with the Bhaalspawn saga. I mean as already said, you couldn't really gain lvl's with any character from the bhaalspawn saga before bg1. I would rather see a whole new adventure taking part near Baldurs gate and what lies north of it, like Soubar and so on.

@Tiberius: There should be armies of base level monsters, goblins don't hang round in groups of five or ten, there should be hundreds of 'em (should I mention the intro of LotR's? oh well...too late).

@Gregor McGrum: "What I wanna see is epic characters."? How can you have an epic character if you can't be bothered to progress from level1? (plus the fact this is rumoured to be a prequel to bg1 and not a sequel you should have no reason to start from a progressed stage)

@Harbourboy: If I do find out it was all a dream, I swear some heads will roll...how enoying would that be?!?

@Bahir the Red: I find it unlikely that you will play the EXACT same character from bg1+2 as you said, it will be impossible to level up and hold the story true. Maybe the character will be the lord of murder himself or maybe nothing to do with the bhaal spwan at all...who knows...

I'm definately looking forward to a completly fresh story that has little relation to the characters in bg1+2 but is still based on the sword cost etc.

Will the game be using the same ruleset from bg2? Are they allowing you to use your character from bg2 too? I can tell I'm going to get as impatient with this as I am with FO3 and NWN2...grrrr

Well I don't think there is realistically a way they could make a good sequel / prequel. And the way I see it, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 are all about Charname. If BG3 isn't about Charname, then it isn't BG3. They should make a new D&D title instead.

Even if they managed to make an incredibly good game telling the story of someone related to the events of BG1&2, it still wouldn't *really* be BG3 to my eyes.

Aye, this is a problem alright.

Ah yes, the number three does stuff it up a bit doesn't it. Maybe they should have wrecked it the profesional(sp?) way and done a star wars title and called it episode 1 or somthing really stupid like that :) They should have just let it be, SoA and ToB were excellent, how do they intend to top it? They have a challenge alrighty, maybe they are going to base the story on Boo, who all long has been the REAL lord of murder, that'll make me buy it for sure ;)

[ August 19, 2004, 13:30: Message edited by: Slayer of the Coast ]

the way I see it, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 are all about Charname. If BG3 isn't about Charname, then it isn't BG3. They should make a new D&D title instead.That is exactly my view on things. And the chances of them actaully doing anything other than a prequel are probably slim. So I very much doubt i'll bother with it.

Maybe it will deal with the Harpers attempt to stop Bhaal from coming back. :p

Battling Tarrasques.

Hmm, Prequel?
Like playing Gorion and saving <charname>?
Or playing Bhaal and impregnating anything that moves?

I hope it won't be a sequel with the same character, starting at level 40, maybe if he/she had a good kick in the head and forgot all his experience, then it could be okay...

The hardest creature in BG will hopefully be a high-but-not-really-high-as-a-lich creature, like a mutant gibberling :p

Bah! It looks like they're doing this in 3d too. Does the isometric perspective really sell that badly? Well I hope they'll prove me wrong but I'm pretty much convinced that 3d will only hurt the game. :sosad:

It should have true epic creatures, like prismatic dragons.

That is, assuming the 3.5 system is as closely followed as they did in ToEE (in other words, designed so that you will rarely want to use regular attacks).

If it isn't followed as closely as ToEE, the degree of epicness in the creatures isn't going to make much of a difference because we'll have to use brute force and rely on powerful equipment instead of strategy.

Moving to a 3D non-isometric perspective will serve only to alienate the real fans of the game. Expect to see something actiony and light on actual substance. No I really don't want to see the look of fear in an orc's eye right before the fireball hits okay?

The new perspective might be an indicator that this is gonna be a console port as well.

A 3d perspective will be horrible. I couldn't stand playing NWN because of the view. I agree with Foradasthar, if BG 3 isn't about Charname it simply isn't Baldur's Gate. Although, running around with a level 50+ character would be just plain stupid.

I have to agree with the basic idea that if it doesn't have anything to do with charname then it isn't Baldur's Gate and why they would call it Baldur's Gate III is beyond me and is an obvious move at milking a successful title. I don't want to see a prequel, as far as I can see there isn't really anything you could do with charnames early life and any new character you play would eventually have to die before meeting charname because we hear nothing of them.

I would rather see the game take on a 'child of charname and Aerie/Jaheria/Viconia/Anomen' however that would limit the possible PC races to Human, Half-Elf, Half-Elf(Drow), Half Drow-Half Elf, Half Avariel-Half Elf and certain other mixes.

There has to be a way of the PC being open to being any gender playing any class of any race.

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.

Unless it was all a dream...... 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.

There has to be a way of the PC being open to being any gender playing any class of any race. 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 :p

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'.

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...
:borg:

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.

I want to be able to acquire real estate, and maybe even engage in politics. 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.

My head aches from all the idle speculation here, so let's get some facts straight, shall we? As you can read from our news at http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/27/117.html? :

-BG3 won't be a direct sequel to the storyline of the first two BG games

-It will feature cutting-edge 3D graphics; game makers haven't decided whether to license an existing engine or develop a new one

-"When asked if the follow-up would stick with isometric perspective, John Hight, Atari Executive Producer, indicated that Atari wasn't "afraid to move the camera for cinematic effect. [Your viewpoint] will be immersive then the traditional isometric perspective and bring you closer to the action. You want to see the fear in the orc's eye as you blast him with a fireball, don't you?"

-BG3 will use the DnD 3.5 rules

-While there'll naturally be a lot of combat, Atari plans to include a wide variety of quests and incorporate non-combat-oriented skills to give bloodless solutions to some quests

---

This is what we DO know as facts. So post with this in mind.

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...

What is so bad about 3d Bahir? With 3d you aquire better graphics 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! :rolling:

If they try doing that henchman crap like in NWN then there is no way I will buy it. I will be open-minded to everything else, but if I can't have a 6 character fully controlled by me party I won't buy it.

I really don't mind a prequel, as long as the story is interesting. And the fact they call it BGIII is obviously because the story will be related to the original two games. I liked some ideas mentioned already, such as having Gorion join as an NPC to save a child (charname) to be born shortly.

If they want to remain true to the games' feelings, it has to be party based and should have an isometric view. If the PC/NCPs are in 3D, so be it, but I personaly really don't care about seeing fear in my enemies' eyes. I want to be able to control the party and think about strategy with the placement of each character.

3.5E is very good for turn base combat and the game should be like that. They could however make it the same way as with the original games where we could pause the action whenever we wanted to.

Those were my two cents....!

And the fact they call it BGIII is obviously because the story will be related to the original two games. while in this case, since they have said it is a prequel, it probably will be, it doesn't necessarily follow. BG2 (while continuing the story) was nowhere near Baldur's Gate after all. They could justify naming it BGIII snd not linking it to BG1 and BG2 by just setting it in Baldur's Gate. Course, if thyey did it would suck eggs.

It might not suck eggs. It might turn out to be way better that any game you've ever played before. It might have the best characters ever. Or it might not. Maybe it will never happen at all. Maybe it will be nothing like BG or BGII and be more like something else, say, Pacman. Now there was a great 2D dungeon crawl.......those power pills were like uber-powered Tensers Transformation potions......

well... that post covered all possible outcomes ;) i agree with kitrax though, it would be nice if they could offer 2 modes, isometric and 3d.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but just because it's going to be 3D doesn't mean it will be a first person perspective. It could be like the graphics in Dungeon Seige.

Is that a good thing? (never played Dungeon Seige)

I'd like to see a prequel, mainly because ToB finished the BG saga. And since I liked the BG saga and want to see more of it, the only way that could be done is a prequel. hence...
Well, that's not entirely true. I guess they could do something after ToB, just not playing as a Bhaalspawn.
A prequel does sound interesting, indeed.

khazadman said: "Maybe it will deal with the Harpers attempt to stop Bhaal from coming back. [Razz]"
I was thinking of that too :p

Sniper: Considering Dungeon Siege is nothing but a mindless click-fest ripoff of Diablo, no it's most definitely not a good thing.

I'm not as concerned about graphics, but I guess that's because I grew up on old-school console RPGs where you REALLY had to use your imagination (look at the 8 bit sprite run up and poke the goblin with a...stick). Here's my opinion though: the 3D NWN-esque graphics are alright, but I vastly prefer the isometric BG graphics even if they are supposedly "primitive" according to some people. I may be biased since I have an older PC and even on the lowest graphics settings NWN slows down to a crawl in a city. I'm also not sure that system is necessarily good for controlling a large party of characters--a lot of times you can't see where the frell you're going. I found myself running headlong into loads of enemies purely by accident in NWN. With one PC + henchman it's mildly annoying but you can work around it. 1 PC + 5 NPCs? Not so much.

I'm more concerned about the plot. I like the idea of the Harpers trying to stop Bhaal from coming back, but part of me isn't too keen on it, 'cause really we know how that one turns out. See, this is why I don't like prequels. Either they're full of nonsensical retcons *cough*Enterprise*cough*, or the writers feel the need to hit you over the head with the "Hey! It's a prequel!" mallet *cough*Crapisode 1*cough*.

I REALLY like the idea of setting the game during the Time of Troubles, but there's one teensy little gameplay-related problem that would cause. IIRC, magic was totally wonky during that period--divine magic for obvious reasons but I think arcane magic was also acting strange (no Mystra around to take care of the Weave). You couldn't play a cleric or wizard unless you're severely crippled, and while that makes for interesting roleplaying, I'm not sure most people would go for that in a cRPG (I certainly wouldn't).

At any rate, I'd like to see some action in Evermeet. Why? I like elves. I'd like to see racial prestige classes (the bladesinger for instance). In short: less humans in funny suits syndrome, more actual implementation of authentic demihumans for those of us who can't stand playing human PCs (I can't be the only one!).

@ Sniper (and Paine) - I only played the Dungeon Siege demo. The gameplay sucked, but the graphics were great. So from a graphics perspective (which was my point), yes, it would be a good thing.

Dungeon Siege was a brilliant engine paired with a horrible click-fest of a game, I'm surpised they haven't used the engine to make other games.
3d does not take away an rpg's feel, it can add to it (check: Final Fantasy 7).
3d can also add more complexity to a game simply from a tactical view and will allow more character interaction with objects.

@BtR, think outside the box you've locked yourself in. 3d improves games, it does not take away from them. If an rpg sucks and it happens to be 3d it does not suck because it is 3d, there are other factors at work. The 3d of NWN was dandy for role-playing, the only thing lacking was more customisable facial/body types for the PC (rather than just fat/thin and face that came with different hair types). That isn't 3d's fault, that's the developers' fault because IT CAN BE DONE. ToEE had some good 3d implimentation on the models with equipment but you must realise that they can do so much better.
Knights of the Old Republic was 3d, would you say that it took away from the game? If anything it made it better since you could see the facial features of NPC conversations, something that you could not do in 2d without massive installation requirements and possible FMVs.

In short: less humans in funny suits syndrome, more actual implementation of authentic demihumans for those of us who can't stand playing human PCs (I can't be the only one!). yeah, i definitely agree with this. Something along the lines of dwarven "gutbusters" too.

@Paine:


Pretty much 100% agreement here(well, 99% anyway). I don't think that 3d necessarily = first person but I am one of those who still plays shareware RPGs with ultima 4/5 era graphics(top-down icons with few frames of animation) like Natuk, Pirates of the Western Sea(think BG with an 8 member party and oldschool graphics and non-D&D mechanics) and Helherron.

If this is a single PC(not party based) RPG I will steer clear regardless of whether I can run the game.

I'm not as concerned about graphics, but I guess that's because I grew up on old-school console RPGs where you REALLY had to use your imagination (look at the 8 bit sprite run up and poke the goblin with a...stick). I'm even older school than you. 8-bit graphics? Hah! *begins a back in my day rant* The first DnD based game I played was Pool of Radiance - no not the one you're thinking of - the one developed for the Commodore 64 circa 1985. *end old-fogey rant*

Anyway, it could be 3d and be done well, it just seems that making it 3d will be a little more difficult to see where everyone in the party actually is, especially if they are sticking to the 6-member party setup.

For my part, I'd like to see level 1 characters again. I always prefer "starting" in the very beginning.

Dungeon Siege.... :mad: Probably the worst game I've ever played, in terms of tedium.
What I'd like to see is the range of races and classes seen in Icewind Dale 2, because Drows are the coolest characters ever.

Completly agree, a wider range of Class and Race choice is much better than, ohh, its the third title, and ohhh, its in 3 bluddy D!!!

I'm even older school than you. 8-bit graphics? Hah! *begins a back in my day rant* The first DnD based game I played was Pool of Radiance - no not the one you're thinking of - the one developed for the Commodore 64 circa 1985. *end old-fogey rant*What? You didn't play Zork? (type, "hit troll with dagger" "search west wall") ... no graphics just text.

I agree. I'd rather have a complex character creation menu and the same graphics as BG2. Its substance over style for me, everytime.

Bah - the first DnD-ish computer game I played had Zero-Bit graphics (i.e. it only had words). We had to use our imagination more than kids nowadays.

Gaah! Angband is back!

Come on. Good graphics is only ever positive, as long as it isn't all there is. It goes beyond "good imagination" to be able to play a game where your character is presented by an '@' this day and age.

When I saw TToEE, my first thought was "If only BG2 looked like this, I could play it another 5 years no problem". Certainly there needs to be imagination involved, but graphics boost that imagination. The better the graphics, the better the developers succeed in giving the player exactly the kind of idea and feeling they want them to, and the more immersive and involving the story will become. Assuming they don't screw something up that is. :)

Anyway, those mark graphic games like Angband and Nethack (although that one has some simple graphics nowadays) would've been good if they'd had what they lacked in graphics. But they didn't. Sucky playability, no musics and sounds(this is essential for any good game, imagination or not) and absolutely no plot immersion or good dialogue or party banter or whatever at all. Just mr '@' walking around, killing letters, gathering up other letters, and selling them and then going down killing some more letters, perhaps capital ones this time.

So if we were being serious.... no way. Not ever would I go back there. :D

And btw, while I would like to move on from Infinity to something nicer with better combat / spell animations, character details etc, I do agree that if the price for that would be the dialogue and plot that made BG1&2 so good, then they should rather stick with Infinity instead.

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If BG3 isn't about Charname, then it isn't BG3. They should make a new D&D title instead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And lose how many sales?

What do I care about sales? All I care about is a good game, as any consumer should.

And realistically, I hardly doubt they have the audacity to make a game that has nothing to do with Charname's coming life and the bhaalspawn progeny at all. It seems more a question of how much will it have to do with it, not if.

Did any of you actually play ToB (j/k) c'mon the bhaalspawn are DEAD. How about we make something up in the time of troubles and fight gods as mortals? I dunno that sounds fun to me but too epic to be a prequel...

...i have a interesting idea about the bg3 prequel...

it should be placed in the Time of Troubles..or the Godswar...

imagine that ;) )

Well, they should definitely leave the Bhaalspawn saga alone. In my book, its wrapped up as well as it can be (with a red ribbon on top no less ^^). No point unwrapping it and making a big mess out of it. I really don't want them to spoil my wonderful memories of a great game and a great story with a bad tie in.
And if I'm not mistaken, its confirmed to be a prequel that does not tie in directly to the Bhaalspawn saga. IIRC, I read that you will not meet any of the NPCs as it takes place many many years before that, but one might expect an ancestor of Minsc (or something like that). IMHO, its a good call on their part. Kudos to them, for realising that they should not touch the Bhaalspawn saga.
Not to mention, with Black Isle out of the picture and considering Atari's current track records... well, I am not really so excited about BG3. Lets hope they pull a miracle on this one.

As for the graphics engine, well as long as they pull it off, I don't really care if its 3d or not (while I personally prefer the good old top down view of the Infinity Engine, for me graphics is not a priority, a good story and gameplay comes first, eye candy comes next, although it doesn't hurt to look good, I'd prefer if they pour their resources into the former than latter). I never play NWN in a 3rd perspective, can hardly see a thing so I really hope they give us the option to zoom out to top down view if its a 3d engine.

And can someone link me to how the 3.5e rules work? Honestly, I prefer the 2e (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not too familiar with D&D outside of computer games) of BG2. The classes for BG2 is just amazing (kits and all) and they really stand out on their own giving diversity and uniqueness (while admittedly the restrictions are alittle... well, restrictive), while 3e is just a multi class fest (I usually just stay single classed) although I can't complain about the races. The more the merrier I'd say ;)

Sorry for the long rant ^^

Firstly, a prequel or similar is not a bad idea.
Or one could be able to play an intertwined destiny of another character, say like a Drow exile, not unlike Drizzt or Viconia.
Whilst playing, you will encounter certain happenings from BG 1 and BG 2. Maybe even the Bhaalspawn himself.
Maybe you were one of Sarevoks henchmen???

When it comes to graphic and style, the standard 2d is very good. I still play BG 1 and BG 2 and feel no reason to complain.
Like with Never Winter Nights, the 3d graphics just destroyed that special feeling. NWN was a great game but there were too many problems with the perspective and graphic design.

There has to be a way to strike a good balance.
A first-person view is totally out of question.
Morrowind is the only game that gets away with that (better than NWN by the way).

BG 3... mm... the word tastes good...

I too am outraged that this is going to be in 3D.

I was hoping for an old-school, some might say "classic" text look akin to Wizardry I. I mean, hey, what's wrong with little black and white line drawings of skeletons and goblins?? Gamers are so shallow these days.

Now if you don't mind, I'm gonna dust off the old Commodore 64 and play some REAL games thankk you very much!

The forgotten realms is a big world my friends, dont even tell me you cant make a new BG game... Sure the title could use to be dusted off a bit and changed but if they do as good as bioware than the game should be as good as expected...

So much banter about the engine. 2d, 3d give the new videocards a sweat or not. thankfully some said it it all about gameplay. and that what it was with BG2

some said please no 3d because NWN sucks. NWN was a economical succes and succeses like that make game developrs create game like that. and that is what we want not? NOT TO 3D will be the death of all games coming after bg3. 3d is here, and it will stay unil something better comes along, and that is not 2d. NWN was a gamble that payed up and now they have learnt an listened. Do not worry about the engine, it will be fine.

They never, really never again are going to make a game like BG2 in form of size and roleplaying for singleplayer. why? Because they can only ask payment once. and with many small expands it will be a mess. are you willing to pay double for a game rated just at aproxx 8.5 because it its not for the masses? And we need high selling numbers just to get them to make more. BG2 would now not score very high, not?

O yes I crave for somthing like bg2 but with new paint. I hated the hencman in NWN but still enjoyed it very much. both KOTOR's were nice and I thougt this in forgotten realms? NO! the worlds are to empty, the quest to shallow, the regions to small the game to short.

well let us look at NWN2 to see what Obsidian has made. a tip of the veil will be uncovered by them?
well we can speculate further to no end. maybe one guesses right.

the 3.5 ruleset. I am getting down on my knees to say praise,... By choosing this ruleset they say we will put effort in it. if they did not put effort in it they will have thought of some stupid skill tree. the ruleset is not something to be scared of. it is a good set better than any other new quickly made one. I know it is not always forgiving for novices. that is what a difficulty setting is for. My first run in BG2 was on easy. Not any more.

To call it BG3. afcourse. sales=money=more games made. There is more Bhaalspawn than just charnamebg2. but was the game not called something with gate and not spawn. Is Athakla not the big town on the map and not Baldurs Gate. So it does not have to be about Bhaalspawn does it. it can be about balduran not?

balduran? yes you know of the schield, sword and armor. as far as I know balduran was a girl. Or the founding of baldurs gate? So get rid of the backwards tunnel view with bg2 at the start. look at the light at the end of the tunnel and hope that it is not the end of the way and only shooters are sold.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll wait and see. Any BG3 is good. I like it more 2D because I think it'll be easier to make the game bigger (or it won't matter. meh) and therefore, better. 3.5 ruleset will do just fine. And I don't care if the story's unconnected.

I hope it's a prequel, it'll make me sad reminding me BG series is over but i'll enjoy it more than Balduran's adventures :( .

Oh great! Look what I finally saw over at IGN. Baldurs Gate III, Neverwinter Nights II Update
Even more information on plans for the sequels.
by David Adams

April 5, 2004 - Over the weekend we reported that an Atari PR representative had posted on official forums that Baldur's Gate III and Neverwinter Nights II are in the works.

Well, now that we're into the working week, we've had a chance to check with that very same Atari PR rep, Brandon Smith, as to just what's going on. As it stands right now, neither title has been officially announced. Rather, the point of his post was to say that Atari owns the rights to both of these franchises (and all new Dungeons & Dragons videogames for that matter), and has no intention to abandon either of them. In other words, even if Baldur's Gate III is not in active development right now, Atari has every intention of producing another Baldur's Gate title for the PC. Further, they know very well that another BG title has big shoes to fill, given the glowing reception that the first two games received from both critics and players. Atari wants to do right by the series.

Can we say that either Baldur's Gate III or Neverwinter Nights II are definitely, officially coming? Not at this time. But Atari knows very well the value of both franchises, and intends to release further PC titles for both. As for possible developers, it looks like much-loved BioWare is not a given for either (possible) title, though whether BioWare ends up being involved or not, Atari also assured us that new Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights titles would get the attention of a top-level developer.

While none of this is the solid announcement we want for either game, it's reassuring news for fans of the franchises, and for PC RPG titles in general. Look for more updates just as soon as we get them.Well they didn't have any further updates. Hope Atari actually begin making it sometime soon :mad: :flaming:

Seems politics are getting in the way of these games, they obviously have no intention of makeing a great game... just money, sorry to say but with the nervous words of atari rep's leads me to believe they plan to leech these titles and reap all of the rewards... There is an equally good chance i am wrong but uhh this dosent reassure anybody...

Keeping in mind that that article, according to the date there, was from April 2004 - a lot may have changed since then.

I second the motion for a return to lvl 1. I would also like the game to take place in a very woodsy, mountainous, rivered valleys type location.

level one, ok thats fine. kill goblins for a day and we are on level 4... this is the danger that awaits us. for the first part of the game we must have a d level cap forced in exp recieved. I stand for no exp for killing. with later expands we can raise the cap to and later beyond 20 for epic needs.

and so we come into a debate: Is the game nicer on high or on low levels?

for me in bg2 I would give the tactical answer the middle. but after thinking I liked the lower more than the higher. At some point in the Bhaal expand I was not able to win fight anymore. I lost control and did not know what to do. It was my first D&d game. Take the rooms wih all the devils, or the demons in watches keep. Got in the room, fight one and try to escape with no dead, heal, again fight....Later with the six supercreatures i had to cheat to finish the game on normal. The desert battle was nice. Throne of bhaal was no fun for me, I want roleplying to be dominant. I want things like the strongholds. so I played bg2 only in the normal campaign but modded. If I only want combat, I will play guild wars.

My fear is that to please high level players we will reach those levels fast and we have a killing contest. NWN did it good(ducking to avoid the stone trown at me) by setting a cap at 20. With shadows of undrentide bioware made a good expand for all the fans. And it was not linked to the oc. HotU was more for the epic players as a desert. (I finished both on core rules without cheating wiz23/fig6/AA2)

2D vs 3D:
2D is tried and true. 3D is 'new'. This means that there is stuff to learn about 3D. I have seen games in which the 3D element was actually a detractor, you couldn't see what you needed and you couldn't tell where you were going. That said, 3D can be a great advantage to the graphics component of a game.
P.S. I liked BG I graphics better than II.
THAT said, graphics are right there with music as the LAST concerns as to the greatness of a game. Graphics CANNOT make a game good, only make a good game better.
Levels:
Growing from level 1 to level 20 or higher gives teh game a degree of epic scope, not to mention customization. If you have 20+ levels to customize your characters' skills, spells, classes, and such, very few lvl 20 characters will be truely the same. Start at lvl 1, but put a 'gainable xp' min on. This means that, when you're lvl 15, goblins and such won't give you any xp because the xp they would give is below your xp min. On the other hand, dragons still give you xp regardless of where you are in the storyline.
Atari:
I think Joust was the last game I thought Atari did a good job on. Did Atari actually make Joust? A company refusing to officially announce the production of a game like BG III in todays environment is hardly evidence that it isn't doing so. THAT said, I hate Atari. I really hate Atari. After ToEE, I want to burn Atari headquarters to the ground. When I heard Atari had control of BG III, I tore my clothes, gnashed my teeth, and put ashes on my head (biblical reference). It will truely be a miracle if Atari itself does anything right with BG III.

2D has more of a fantasy feel than 3D. In almost every genre that is playable in 2D, the 2D games are more popular than their 3D counterparts.

RTS: Starcraft, Warcraft 2 for a long time, although there are great 3D games aswell (Total Annhilation, WC3)
Roleplaying: BG > Oblivion (which is okay, but just not as good), NWN (ditto)
Hack&Slash: Diablo (2) > Dungeon Siege

And music... the music in Total Annihilation *is* half the game, same goes for BG, which has a superb soundtrack aswell.

3D just dispells so much of the fantasy...

We'll just have to live with the 3D. The number of max party members should be reduced, however, or the camera angles will be very limited if you wish to see your whole party.

But with the 3D, I'm worried about how good computer will you need to play the game. A thing that added to the popularity of BG1-2 was that it ran on old&slow systems, too.

And most RPG players have slower machines, so if they want it to sell, keep the specs down. Oblivion is though to run for many persons on this board, and for one game alone, we will hardly upgrade.

I think it would be wisest to stick to a BG style of view. That way we can get a large party (6-8), which I think we all want as at least an option, and we can run it on realistic machines.