# Baldur's Gate 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2 all-but-confirmed by Atari!



## Dark Jezter (Jul 25, 2004)

> The new issue of PC Gamer magazine (the one with the review of Doom 3 on their cover) has a blurb that indicates that their next issue will have a look at several upcoming Dungeons and Dragons themed games, including the previously announced D&D Online and D&D RTS titles plus the previously unannounced games Neverwinter Nights 2 and Baldur's Gate 3. When contacted by HomeLAN to comment on this news bit an rep from Atari (the current holder of the console-PC D&D game licence) said, "There may be some truth to that statement..."




Source:  http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=24824

If this is true (which it probably is), all I can say is... YES!  Baldur's Gate II and Neverwinter Nights are two games that I've really, really loved.  If the upcoming sequels are anywhere close to as good as their predecessors, things are really looking good for the future of D&D-themed PC games.


----------



## KenM (Jul 25, 2004)

I just hope its Bioware doing them. I also hope Atari does not force Bioware to edit out things at the last minute they way they did with Temple of Elemental Evil game.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 25, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I just hope its Bioware doing them. I also hope Atari does not force Bioware to edit out things at the last minute they way they did with Temple of Elemental Evil game.



 The Temple of Elemental Evil was made by Troika, not Bioware.

EDIT:  Never mind.  I missread your post.  Oh, and I agree:  I really hope that Bioware are the guys who make the game, although they've got a pretty full plate at the moment with Dragon Age and Jade Empire.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 25, 2004)

Hm.  Odd how this does nothing for me.  Not only have I nearly sworn off Atari, each of those... I didn't like Neverwinter Nights (though I understand the expansion campaigns were far more enjoyable,) and there's no reason for BG3.  Not only would I miss the Inifinity engine (which they wouldn't use,) where would they go with it?  They'd have to start fresh, 'cause they really can't go with 30+ level characters.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 25, 2004)

Terraism said:
			
		

> Hm.  Odd how this does nothing for me.  Not only have I nearly sworn off Atari, each of those... I didn't like Neverwinter Nights (though I understand the expansion campaigns were far more enjoyable,) and there's no reason for BG3.  Not only would I miss the Inifinity engine (which they wouldn't use,) where would they go with it?  They'd have to start fresh, 'cause they really can't go with 30+ level characters.



 Before Interplay went under, they were working on Baldur's Gate 3.  Not much was known about it, except that it focused on an entirely new storyline with new characters.  Also, the game was supposedly set in the Dalelands rather than the Sword Coast like BG1 and BG2 were.

I can't say that I'll miss the Infinity engine, though.  Although it was great for its time, it's very dated by today's standards.  As long as BG3 combines a great story and memorable characters with addictive gamplay, it will be worthy of carrying the Baldur's Gate name. 

And who knows?  Maybe a few characters from BG1 and BG2 will make cameo apperances in BG3.  I know that I wouldn't mind seeing Minsc and Boo again.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Before Interplay went under, they were working on Baldur's Gate 3. Not much was known about it, except that it focused on an entirely new storyline with new characters. Also, the game was supposedly set in the Dalelands rather than the Sword Coast like BG1 and BG2 were.



 While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate.  They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all.  I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series.  That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.  



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I can't say that I'll miss the Infinity engine, though. Although it was great for its time, it's very dated by today's standards. As long as BG3 combines a great story and memorable characters with addictive gamplay, it will be worthy of carrying the Baldur's Gate name.



 I've always loved the Infinity engine.  While it could use some updates, I never had any problems with the faux 3D perspective they did - I certainly feel that Throne of Bhaal and, especially, Icewind Dale II looked far nicer than Neverwinter Night's (in 3D! [Rolls eyes]) did.  Combat was better handled in that engine than most I've seen, though, especially for 3E, it'd probably be *better* done by something akin to ToEE's turn-based system.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> And who knows? Maybe a few characters from BG1 and BG2 will make cameo apperances in BG3. I know that I wouldn't mind seeing Minsc and Boo again.



 No arguments there.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 25, 2004)

Terraism said:
			
		

> While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate.  They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all.  I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series.  That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.




They might have to keep the "Baldur's Gate" name, contractually - even though it doesn't make practical sense.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 25, 2004)

Terraism said:
			
		

> While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate.  They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all.  I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series.  That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.




I'm in complete agreement here, if it's not related story wise then it shouldn't use the name, and since there's no where else to reasonablely go with the story it shouldn't be called BG3.

Throw in the fact Bioware may not develop it and I rather see it not happen. Tacking the name of a popular game on something will not get me excited.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 25, 2004)

I can assure those posters who are wondering, that Bioware is not involved in either NWN2 or BG3. I have discussed the matter with several Bio staffers who are firends of mine, and they have assured me that BioWare is not involved.

The rights to those games are Ataris, not BioWare's.

While I have been massively involved in the NWN community, my expectations for NWN2 are very, very guarded.  I expect that most of the CC and mod building community that had made NWN so successful will abandon the game for BioWare's Dragon Age.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 25, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I can assure those posters who are wondering, that Bioware is not involved in either NWN2 or BG3. I have discussed the matter with several Bio staffers who are firends of mine, and they have assured me that BioWare is not involved.
> 
> The rights to those games are Ataris, not BioWare's.
> 
> While I have been massively involved in the NWN community, my expectations for NWN2 are very, very guarded.  I expect that most of the CC and mod building community that had made NWN so successful will abandon the game for BioWare's Dragon Age.



 Although this is disappointing news, I'm not going to assume the worst about the games simply because Bioware is not making them.  I'll be keeping track of the progress of the two games, reading previews, and taking a look at other games made by the development houses involved.

As for the earilier points about how BG3 should have a different title because it won't continue the story of BG1 and BG2, sequels having little to no connection to the storylines of their predecessors is not an uncommon practice in the video game industry.  Final Fantasy and Quake are just two franchises where the sequels have no storyline connection to the games that came before.


----------



## Express (Jul 25, 2004)

Atari's involvement in this worries me. IMHO Ataris PC record has been shaky. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was rushed-and I am still upset over the botch job they did on release.

Even on the console side DnD Heroes is pretty mediocre. Maybe a better barometer will be FR Demonstone which Atari is publishing.

To me it just seems Bioware "gets" rpgs in general and DnD specifically. Not having them involved is a shame. 

But who knows maybe theyll turn out ok.


----------



## KenM (Jul 25, 2004)

I belive Atari has exclusive rights to publish any DnD computer/ console game. Any company can make it, but Atari must publish it. They forced Trokia to edtit stuff out of ToEE game.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 25, 2004)

Well...here's to hoping they're good. I dunno about NWN2, but I've got some hope for BG3 at least.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 26, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> As for the earilier points about how BG3 should have a different title because it won't continue the story of BG1 and BG2, sequels having little to no connection to the storylines of their predecessors is not an uncommon practice in the video game industry. Final Fantasy and Quake are just two franchises where the sequels have no storyline connection to the games that came before.



 Right.  But neither of those two franchises already have a precedent for the games being in series.  Baldur's Gate _does_, and that's the difference.  There have been four released products in the Baldur's Gate line, and they've all moved directly in chronological order (with allowances for TotSC.)  Neither Final Fantasy nor Quake can say that.


----------



## ShadowX (Jul 26, 2004)

Let me interject something.  The Baldur's Gate 3 that was once under development at Interplay had to have the Baldur's Gate moniker as they lost all other rights to D&D games.  Now neither of these two games are very exciting, yet.  I want to see who is creating them first.  I also did not like the NWN engine, and the campaigns were medicore, though the expansions had moments.


----------



## frugal (Jul 26, 2004)

Express said:
			
		

> Atari's involvement in this worries me. IMHO Ataris PC record has been shaky.




Remember Atari are just Infogrames rebranded...

Infogrames was getting so much bad press that they bought Atari just to use the name


----------



## gravyboat (Jul 26, 2004)

The Baldur's Gate games are very memorable for me.  Excellent music and great environmental art (even though it was 2D).  I know that the highly turn based system in Temple of Elemental Evil is much closer to the P&P game of D&D; however, I miss the speed of combat in the Baldur's Gate games.  I'm hoping the combat system in BG 3 is similarly fast-paced like BG 1 and 2.


----------



## KenM (Jul 26, 2004)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> The Baldur's Gate games are very memorable for me.  Excellent music and great environmental art (even though it was 2D).  I know that the highly turn based system in Temple of Elemental Evil is much closer to the P&P game of D&D; however, I miss the speed of combat in the Baldur's Gate games.  I'm hoping the combat system in BG 3 is similarly fast-paced like BG 1 and 2.




  When I played the first BG, I had to turn on some of the auto pause options. Hard to do real time combat when you are managing a party of 6 people.


----------



## Pants (Jul 26, 2004)

Terraism said:
			
		

> I've always loved the Infinity engine.  While it could use some updates, I never had any problems with the faux 3D perspective they did - I certainly feel that Throne of Bhaal and, especially, Icewind Dale II looked far nicer than Neverwinter Night's (in 3D! [Rolls eyes]) did.  Combat was better handled in that engine than most I've seen, though, especially for 3E, it'd probably be *better* done by something akin to ToEE's turn-based system.



Yeah, the Infinity Engine is really nice.  Icewind Dale II was a very good looking game, while NWN was a very poor looking 3D game, plus it was a system hog.  Although, if the new BG game were to use a new engine, I'd also like to see it use ToEE engine.  That was some good 3D.


----------



## gravyboat (Jul 27, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> When I played the first BG, I had to turn on some of the auto pause options. Hard to do real time combat when you are managing a party of 6 people.




I definitely agree. Auto-pause was a life-saver option in BG.


----------



## Express (Jul 27, 2004)

frugal said:
			
		

> Remember Atari are just Infogrames rebranded...
> 
> Infogrames was getting so much bad press that they bought Atari just to use the name




True, but neither brand name illicits much confidence in me.


----------



## Wycen (Jul 27, 2004)

Baldurs Gate has built in continuance thanks to the idea you are offspring of a god, and in BG2 you yourself can get jiggy with some of the NPC's, not to mention in Throne of Bhaal Aerie the elf can give birth if you follow that romance path.

Of course, the timeline could have problems with that approach, not to mention I would guess the BG1 and 2 stories belong to Bioware, thus any new games have to revolve around something new.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jul 27, 2004)

I enjoy both the NWN & BG series, & I have different expectations from them both.

BG, as an old friend of mine once put it, has a bit of an Ultima feel: your PC is in the role of Avatar, & you gather Companions to help you complete your quests.  It's a big storyline with a lot of investment in the character, & to a certain degree, control over character development.

NWN, OTOH, is a "hero & his/her sidekick(s)" sort of game--it's your PC, with 1 (maybe 2, if you've gone that far in-game) NPC followers that go through the quest. Though you have a little help in the game, it seems to be a bit tougher to endure.  However, the big selling point with me isn't the original module, but the ability to create your own stuff & your own worlds--there's even a few persistent state worlds out there using NWN.

I'd definitely like to see a big story tie-in between BG3 & the previous releases of the game (perhaps the child of the Bhaalspawn, or even a new PC dealing with the mess left behind by the events of BG 1 & 2.

As for NWN2, well, I'd just hope it builds on what's there in NWN1, engine-wise (hopefully it even updates it to 3.5 mechanics/rules).  I'd really hope it still allows for custom content & module design (heck, I hope it'd allow for easy creation of new races & classes).


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 27, 2004)

AFGNCAAP's opinion on this matter is pretty similiar to mine.

I expect Baldur's Gate III to have...
An epic storyline.
NPCs that you actually grow attached to.
A _huge_ campaign with lots of optional subquests (BG2 took over 100 hours to complete if you did everything you possibly could, enough to keep even hardcore gamers busy for weeks).
Fun gameplay.
Focus on controlling an entire party of characters.
A good implimentation of the 3.5e rules.

I expect NWN2 to have...
A good storyline.
Fun gameplay
Custom content.  The reason I've kept coming back to NWN over the last 2 years is because of the many high-quality user-made modules for NWN, such as Adam Miller's _Shadowlords_ and _Dreamcatcher_ campaigns, as well as Rick Burton's _Paladin Trilogy_.
Great multiplayer features.
Focus on controlling a single adventurer (with 1 or 2 henchmen).
A good implimentation of the 3.5e rules.

I think that the biggest reason that many Baldur's Gate fans didn't like Neverwinter Nights was because they were expecting the game to be similar to Baldur's Gate except with a 3-D engine and implimentation of the 3e ruleset.  But the two games are like apples and oranges; Baldur's Gate is a massive single player-oriented game that is very story-driven, while Neverwinter Nights was built around multiplayer support and user-end customizability (although the _Hordes of the Underdark_ expansion pack did have a kickass storyline and characters).  I love both games deeply, and have spent countless hours playing them.


----------



## KenM (Jul 27, 2004)

If BG 3 does not have Minsc and Boo, then its not a BG game, IMO.


----------



## Asmo (Jul 27, 2004)

Much as Dark Jezter I´ve played both  games countless of hours and love them both deeply.
The only thing I really miss in NWN is a whole party, playing with only one henchman is simply not fun enough. When you could have both Deekin and Valen Shadowbreath (just to take an example) in the party the fun really started and the experience of the game deepened considerably in my opinion.


Asmo


----------



## Avouz (Jul 27, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I think that the biggest reason that many Baldur's Gate fans didn't like Neverwinter Nights was because they were expecting the game to be similar to Baldur's Gate except with a 3-D engine and implimentation of the 3e ruleset.  But the two games are like apples and oranges; Baldur's Gate is a massive single player-oriented game that is very story-driven, while Neverwinter Nights was built around multiplayer support and user-end customizability (although the _Hordes of the Underdark_ expansion pack did have a kickass storyline and characters).  I love both games deeply, and have spent countless hours playing them.




I'll have to admit I'm in the camp of folks who were disappointed that NWN did not implement some of the features of BG. While I grew to love NWN mostly due to its customization, I really missed the NPC party and the interaction with them that your PC could have. I'm hoping NWN2 corrects this and that BG3 retains it. 

That may be asking too much, because I'm sure a BG level of interaction with NPCs would be very difficult to implement in the Aurora engine (or its successor.) Having made a mod or two for NWN, this isn't hard to imagine. Still, I'm going to be greedy here.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 27, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> As for the earilier points about how BG3 should have a different title because it won't continue the story of BG1 and BG2, sequels having little to no connection to the storylines of their predecessors is not an uncommon practice in the video game industry.  Final Fantasy and Quake are just two franchises where the sequels have no storyline connection to the games that came before.




So every FR based game should be named Baldur's Gate? How about every D&D game? Just because Square and Id are stupid doesn't mean everyone else should be.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 27, 2004)

I didn't say anything of the sort.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, calling id Software and SquareEnix stupid is mean and hurtful.  Why, I'm sure the employees of those two companies will be crying all the way to the bank.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 27, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything of the sort.  Don't put words in my mouth.




I didn't, I asked a question.

This comes across as nothing but an attempt to cash in on a the name of a popular series, which is something I have a problem with.



> Also, calling id Software and SquareEnix stupid is mean and hurtful.  Why, I'm sure the employees of those two companies will be crying all the way to the bank.




I'm sure they will.


----------



## Lela (Jul 27, 2004)

I find myself with Dark Jezter on this one (nicely laid out by the way).  BG's story was epic and engaging.  It drew you in, gave you options for almost evey character (including most NPCs), and was filled with surprises.

I find that I don't care if they use the BG name.  If it's a good game, I'll play it and enjoy it.  If it's not, I won't.  Pretty simple.  And if it's a great game, I think I'll even be happy that they called it BG because I likely wouldn't have found it otherwise.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 28, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I didn't, I asked a question.
> 
> This comes across as nothing but an attempt to cash in on a the name of a popular series, which is something I have a problem with.




Very well, in answer to your question: No, every Forgotten Realms/D&D game shouldn't be named Baldur's Gate.  However, if the game features similar gameplay and other elements to BG1 and BG2, then I see no problem with naming it Baldur's Gate III.  Icewind Dale 2 does not continue the story of Icewind Dale 1 (it takes place decades later and only makes passing mention of the events of IWD1), but I don't see anybody complaining about Icewind Dale 2 being promoted as a sequel.


----------



## Express (Jul 28, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> So every FR based game should be named Baldur's Gate? How about every D&D game? Just because Square and Id are stupid doesn't mean everyone else should be.




Im sure its to keep the brand name. While people may or may not know DnD, Baldurs Gate has become a video game franchise. And for good or bad, the powers that be will use it./shrug. Im actually surprised FR Demonstone isnt using it after it was used in 2 hack n slash BG console games that bore no resemblance to the PC games.

A big wish for me is that BG3 does mirror Knights of the Old Republic in giving you a party and party dynamics. I didnt like that NWN was basically a solo game, regardless of how many cohorts they eventually gave you in the expansions. It was a slight difference, but big to me.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 28, 2004)

> I didnt like that NWN was basically a solo game, regardless of how many cohorts they eventually gave you in the expansions. It was a slight difference, but big to me.




Nor I. 

We've spent a LOT of time putting a party control interface into NWN. It's been a very difficult task.  It's like a kidney transplant: the patient rejects the tissue at every turn. 

That said, NWN was conceived of at a time when QII and UT were king. The expectation was that RPGers would take to multiplayer NWN with the DM client and would not be terribly interested in SP games.

About 70% of NWN's players have never even tried multiplayer and don't want to.  KotOR was SP and sold better than NWN and won GotY from almost everybody.

BioWare got the message - DragonAge is a party based pause 'n play game game with single hero control in multiplayer. This is the way NWN should always have been.

By the way - to the poster above. NWN can be a gorgeous 3d game.  BioWare was contractually bound to deliver a title that would run on a PII400 on a TNT216 card.  Aurora is a capable of a LOT more than that. Any doubt on this - have a look at our home page. Even then - NWN is a high res 512x512 game.  Dungeon Siege was pure ugly 256.

The villain? The .plt system and TNT216 compatibility. It reduced the color pallette WAY more than Aura was actually designed to do.  NWN can look like this if you want it to  click here 

The whole news of Atari and BG3 and NWN2 has me partly excited and partly spooked.

In a very real sense, this is good news for gamers. There is precisely ONE Triple A developer developing CRPGs for the PC platform only, and that's BioWare.  Due to piracy issues, consoles are simply far more lucrative and MMORPGs have drawn off CRPG devs for piracy reasons as well (though that market is oversaturated by far and a LOT of devs are about to lose their shirts).

But for the same reason, I am very concerned that BG3 and NWN2 may end up being PC/Xbox2 hybrids. This would effect gameplay design *seriously* and would be a move towards substantially dumbing down gameplay.

Lastly, while Atari deserves a lot of blame for Temple of Elemental Evil, Troika does too. Savage Atari by all means - but don't let those devs off the hook please.

What happened with ToEE was this: Troika signed a deal with a hard deadline date. It was a contractual nightmare to sign - they should NEVER have done it but they did anyways.  They didn't make ship date (small surprise - no game dev does) . 

Atari refused to budge on delivery date and refused to make any more milestone payments. Troika turned over the code unfinished and Atari released it.

Shame on them both.

It was a steaming pile of crap. The writing was *terrible*. The bugs were *legion*.

The much delayed patch fixed a lot of the bugs, but the writing was STILL crap. 

Atari deserves a lot of blame for ToEE, but never has a developer got off the hook as easily as has Troika with ToEE. I won't buy another one of their games.  There is a price to be paid for poor game design - and by any measurement, they had a poor design.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 28, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> But for the same reason, I am very concerned that BG3 and NWN2 may end up being PC/Xbox2 hybrids. This would effect gameplay design *seriously* and would be a move towards substantially dumbing down gameplay.




Explain to me exactly how making the games for both XBox and PC would dumb-down the gameplay.  I've played some PC/XBox hybrid titles (KotOR, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six 3) that were absolutely wonderful, and could hardly be described as dumbed-down.



> Atari deserves a lot of blame for ToEE, but never has a developer got off the hook as easily as has Troika with ToEE. I won't buy another one of their games. There is a price to be paid for poor game design - and by any measurement, they had a poor design.




My thoughts exactly.  I constantly see people blaming ToEE's problems solely on Atari, but Troika is at _least_ as much to blame as Atari is.


----------



## Express (Jul 28, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Explain to me exactly how making the games for both XBox and PC would dumb-down the gameplay.  I've played some PC/XBox hybrid titles (KotOR, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six 3) that were absolutely wonderful, and could hardly be described as dumbed-down.
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts exactly.  I constantly see people blaming ToEE's problems solely on Atari, but Troika is at _least_ as much to blame as Atari is.




My unsolicited opinion on this is that some games (a recent example may be Dues Ex 2) get dumbed down or features homogonized for a dual PC/console release. In those cases the game is ported to the PC from the console, or so it seems. 

And I never understood the praise for Troika, Arcanum was ok IMHO but not as good as the BG series.


----------



## KenM (Jul 28, 2004)

I played both the PC and Xbox version of Rainbow6 3. The gameplay and interface is almost totally different from one another. I'm not saying the Xbox version was dumbed down, but totally different.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 28, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> BioWare got the message - DragonAge is a party based pause 'n play game game with single hero control in multiplayer. This is the way NWN should always have been.



 I'd not heard anything about your project - probably because I made it through the NWN single player campaign, played with the toolset, decided there was no way to have a party, and and promptly shelved my copy.  That was two years ago, and I haven't looked at it since.  This looks very, very interesting.  What's the requirements for this (projected, anyway?)  Will expansions be needed?



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Lastly, while Atari deserves a lot of blame for Temple of Elemental Evil, Troika does too. Savage Atari by all means - but don't let those devs off the hook please.



 I'll grant you this - Troika did drop the ball, significantly.  That said, they have put time and effort into the patch - unpaid - which moves me back from the "never again" into the "we'll see" camp as far as purchasing from them.  I think they deserve at least some credit there.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It was a steaming pile of crap. The writing was *terrible*. The bugs were *legion*.
> 
> The much delayed patch fixed a lot of the bugs, but the writing was STILL crap.



 This point, I'm going to argue.  The writing was crap because Atari imposed a _maximum word count_ onto the game.  Why?  Because they didn't want to have Q&A do all the _work_ of checking the dialogue.  So Troika was forced to remove a lot of the dialogue (most notably, item descriptions,) and squeeze down on the rest.  That's _Atari's_ fault, not Troika's.




			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Explain to me exactly how making the games for both XBox and PC would dumb-down the gameplay. I've played some PC/XBox hybrid titles (KotOR, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six 3) that were absolutely wonderful, and could hardly be described as dumbed-down.



 I'll second Express on this one - games developed for both, especially those with a previous PC-only incarnation (such as Deus Ex,) do seem to be getting dumbed-down.  Deus Ex 2 may've been a great game (I had a lot of bug problems towards the end - the commandos all seemed to have invisible walls around their heads - but ignoring that,) but it was _nothing_ on the original.  Not because of the story, which was quite good, but because of the lack of skills.  Why were the skills removed?  Because they felt that they complicated how it would work on the Xbox.


----------



## Pants (Jul 28, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> By the way - to the poster above. NWN can be a gorgeous 3d game.  BioWare was contractually bound to deliver a title that would run on a PII400 on a TNT216 card.  Aurora is a capable of a LOT more than that. Any doubt on this - have a look at our home page. Even then - NWN is a high res 512x512 game.  Dungeon Siege was pure ugly 256.
> 
> The villain? The .plt system and TNT216 compatibility. It reduced the color pallette WAY more than Aura was actually designed to do.  NWN can look like this if you want it to  click here



The spell effects were wonderful, but the models and the color palettes (as you said) were terribly dreadful and woefully outdated.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 28, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Very well, in answer to your question: No, every Forgotten Realms/D&D game shouldn't be named Baldur's Gate.  However, if the game features similar gameplay and other elements to BG1 and BG2, then I see no problem with naming it Baldur's Gate III.  Icewind Dale 2 does not continue the story of Icewind Dale 1 (it takes place decades later and only makes passing mention of the events of IWD1), but I don't see anybody complaining about Icewind Dale 2 being promoted as a sequel.




But ID2 was still based in Icewind Dale. Baldur's Gate isn't some generic phrase, neither is Icewind Dale. Any new game is unlikely to have any story connection to the previous games as well as not be based in BG and what you say you like about the games aren't unique to the series, so under the circumstances to me naming a new game BG3 is nothing but an attempt to sucker people into buying the game rather than selling it on it's own merits.



			
				Express said:
			
		

> Im sure its to keep the brand name. While people may or may not know DnD, Baldurs Gate has become a video game franchise. And for good or bad, the powers that be will use it./shrug. Im actually surprised FR Demonstone isnt using it after it was used in 2 hack n slash BG console games that bore no resemblance to the PC games.




NWN wasn't hurt in sales by not being called BG, the old gold box games weren't hurt by not sharing a name either. If they want attention all they need to do is plop the D&D and FR names on the box and that will accomplish what they're trying to do by calling it BG3.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Explain to me exactly how making the games for both XBox and PC would dumb-down the gameplay.  I've played some PC/XBox hybrid titles (KotOR, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six 3) that were absolutely wonderful, and could hardly be described as dumbed-down.




It's not an inherent aspect of development it's a mentality. PC and console gamers want different things (in general), in an attempt to satisfy both aspects that PC gamers expect often get left out to provide the type of game you’re typical console gamer would want, which is viewed as dumbing the game down.

RPG’s are a good example of the differing tastes, a lot of the complexity and micro management you find in PC rpg’s just wouldn’t fly in a console rpg.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 29, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> But ID2 was still based in Icewind Dale. Baldur's Gate isn't some generic phrase, neither is Icewind Dale.  Any new game is unlikely to have any story connection to the previous games as well as not be based in BG and what you say you like about the games aren't unique to the series, so under the circumstances to me naming a new game BG3 is nothing but an attempt to sucker people into buying the game rather than selling it on it's own merits.
> 
> NWN wasn't hurt in sales by not being called BG, the old gold box games weren't hurt by not sharing a name either. If they want attention all they need to do is plop the D&D and FR names on the box and that will accomplish what they're trying to do by calling it BG3.




Settle down, will you?  The game hasn't even been officially announced yet, none of us know anything about the gameplay or storyline, and already you're willing to condemn it as a scam to rip people off using the Baldur's Gate name.

Maybe the game will have storyline connections to BG1 and BG2, maybe it won't.  Maybe the game will be set in or around the Baldur's Gate area, maybe it won't.  I'm going to at least wait until we hear more about the game (maybe even going so far as actually playing it) before I decide whether I hate it or not.  

Even if the game is in no way connected to the storyline of BG1 and BG2, I won't mind it having the Baldur's Gate title on the box as long as it has a similar feel to the first two games in the series.  I know you disagree with me on this issue, but I find that very few gamers give a rat's behind about the title of a game as long as the game itself is enjoyable, and if the game isn't enjoyable, than the title is the least of its problems.


----------



## Express (Jul 29, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Settle down, will you?  The game hasn't even been officially announced yet, none of us know anything about the gameplay or storyline, and already you're willing to condemn it as a scam to rip people off using the Baldur's Gate name.
> 
> Maybe the game will have storyline connections to BG1 and BG2, maybe it won't.  Maybe the game will be set in or around the Baldur's Gate area, maybe it won't.  I'm going to at least wait until we hear more about the game (maybe even going so far as actually playing it) before I decide whether I hate it or not.
> 
> Even if the game is in no way connected to the storyline of BG1 and BG2, I won't mind it having the Baldur's Gate title on the box as long as it has a similar feel to the first two games in the series.  I know you disagree with me on this issue, but I find that very few gamers give a rat's behind about the title of a game as long as the game itself is enjoyable, and if the game isn't enjoyable, than the title is the least of its problems.




Actually, Ive always thougth it kind of funny how the names of games and sequels and related games morph over time. Im sure that the game publishers want to keep the BG name since it is a "brand name" for a franchise; different from NWN, Icewind Dale, etc, although two of the games with BG in the title are console games with no real ties to the PC games.

But this can cause titles to get longer. For instance take the Jedi Knight series. Star Wars:Jedi Knight , Star Wars:Jedi Knight 2:Jedi Outcast, then Star Wars:Jedi Knight:Jedi Academy.

Itd be interesting to see if the BG : Dark Alliance games take the Dark Alliance title as the series name or continue to use BG: DA making the title longer....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 31, 2004)

Much as I loved the BG series, I'd really rather see a ToEE sequel -- or at least something using that engine.  It's the closest thing to D&D rules I've played, IMO (bugs and release problems aside).A BG title with the ToEE turn-based party combat engine would be heaven!


----------



## Welverin (Aug 4, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Settle down, will you?




Take your own advice.



> The game hasn't even been officially announced yet, none of us know anything about the gameplay or storyline, and already you're willing to condemn it as a scam to rip people off using the Baldur's Gate name.




I'm condemning it, I do question the use of the name and the reasoning behind it. I will wait until finding out what it's about before deciding one way or the other.



> I'm going to at least wait until we hear more about the game (maybe even going so far as actually playing it) before I decide whether I hate it or not.




Good for you.



> Even if the game is in no way connected to the storyline of BG1 and BG2, I won't mind it having the Baldur's Gate title on the box as long as it has a similar feel to the first two games in the series.  I know you disagree with me on this issue, but I find that very few gamers give a rat's behind about the title of a game as long as the game itself is enjoyable,




Actually I don't disagree with on that at all, I don't care what the title is, so long as the game is good or if it's bad, in which case I won't care because I won't be playing it.

None of that however stops me from questioning the reasoning behind the choice of the name or it's appropriateness for the game, which looks to be the only difference between us on the matter.


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 5, 2004)

Here is what I want to see

NWN2- Since some think that false expectations and not the crappy engine and horrible campaign ruined this game, model it on the ultimate hero/henchman game, the Fallouts.  And get a better engine for the love of God.

BG3- ToEE combat would be nice, but back to reality.  Instead of a massive amount of often menial sidequests how about a truly living world.  Also shape up the combat, especially at high levels.  Looking to Black Isle Studio for how to make interesting combat and how to tell a story would help.

For any RPG emulating Fallout or Torment is a good idea.


----------



## Henry (Aug 6, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Final Fantasy and Quake are just two franchises where the sequels have no storyline connection to the games that came before.




Agreed, but to me that's like someone writing a novel called, "Stories of New York" - and then the whole novel takes place in Seattle Washington, and New York is never mentioned. It's a real _non sequitur._


----------

