45 réponses à ce sujet

[Azione]

I don't know BG3...
We have Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights; i would love to see another game taking place in another city or region of Faerun

[bussinrounds]

Azione wrote...

I don't know BG3...
We have Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights; i would love to see another game taking place in another city or region of Faerun

     I agree.  Or another d&d setting like Planescape/Greyhawk/Ravenloft/Hollow World/Dark Sun (although i do love the FR and would have no problem with another game there)

       Just as long as it's not the 4th edition garbage.    2nd would be sweet !

[Ishad Nha]

The only way it will happen any time soon is as a mod. But that would take so much work. We do have a lot of programmers and at least one author, Kulyok.
We could adapt one of the Neverwinter Nights mods? Presumably no connection to the events of BG2. We could write a program to port NWN files to a BG2 format.
If the protagonist chose mortal life at the end of Throne of Bhaal he would be the protagonist in any BG3. If on the other hand he chose ascension to godhood, then his avatar would be the protagonist instead.

[Moganza]

Ishad Nha wrote...

The only way it will happen any time soon is as a mod. But that would take so much work. We do have a lot of programmers and at least one author, Kulyok.
We could adapt one of the Neverwinter Nights mods? Presumably no connection to the events of BG2. We could write a program to port NWN files to a BG2 format.
If the protagonist chose mortal life at the end of Throne of Bhaal he would be the protagonist in any BG3. If on the other hand he chose ascension to godhood, then his avatar would be the protagonist instead.

DUDE SPOILER! Damn I need to finish TOB before the whole thing is ruined for me

[Ishad Nha]

Technically I posted a spoiler there, oops. Though that is after the end of the game, choosing mortal life v godhood simply alters some of the final text that is all. That is the last choice you make in the game, there are no further fights, dialogs, travel or oppurtunities to save the game. Everything else is cutscenes.
ToB is worth finishing. Boss monsters are not as well developed, character-wise, as Joneleth Irenicus because they last for a much briefer period of time than he did. ToB is a smaller game than SoA to top it off.

[Shadow_Leech07]

Baldur's Gate 3 would have to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate.. And if Baldur's Gate 3 would made to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate then people who actually do play Baldur's Gate would be upset.

A remake of Baldur's Gate is much more sensible at this time, because it has been ten or so years. Using the same spell and combat system of course, but that is impossible of course.

[Moganza]

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Baldur's Gate 3 would have to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate.. And if Baldur's Gate 3 would made to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate then people who actually do play Baldur's Gate would be upset..

I dont agree with that statement. I hate to use the oldest of euphamisms but its not black and white. I'm sure they could keep the core Baldurs Gate experience and add new features to make it appeal to more people. I agree with someones previous post about there being a market for people who want hardcore RPGs that havent been 'casualised'. The closest thing to that right now which looks like a decent game to me is Diablo 3 which is taking the mick with the release date right now. There is of course Skyrim but thats quite a different experience then say Baldurs Gate.

[Azione]

If its done, it will be in the 4th D&D edition. That's "appeal to people who do not play baldur's gate" all the way.

[Shadow_Leech07]

Moganza wrote...

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Baldur's Gate 3 would have to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate.. And if Baldur's Gate 3 would made to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate then people who actually do play Baldur's Gate would be upset..

I dont agree with that statement. I hate to use the oldest of euphamisms but its not black and white. I'm sure they could keep the core Baldurs Gate experience and add new features to make it appeal to more people. I agree with someones previous post about there being a market for people who want hardcore RPGs that havent been 'casualised'. The closest thing to that right now which looks like a decent game to me is Diablo 3 which is taking the mick with the release date right now. There is of course Skyrim but thats quite a different experience then say Baldurs Gate.

Diablo 3 is an MMORPG just like Diablo 2 was. And I played Diablo 2 alongside BG2 back in that day and I'll tell you that both games are very different. In D2 one is just running through the game or at least some parts of the game over and over again just to farm for either experience or rare items. This is the replay value of Diablo 2, and because the high levels are capped at 99, the players must play for an exceeding amount of time just  to reach the level cap. My guess is that Blizzard was trying to develop the correct formula for a "WoW" type of game in the future. As for the combat system and spell system, Diablo 2 was very simplistic. The special attacks needed to be focused on, so people just ended up spamming something like guided arrow or frozen orb over and over again until we reach the higher character levels. There was no combination of attacks, just a singular spamming of one attack. That's why we got titles like "Hammerdin" etc. In any case the game itself breeds an environment where only the most ruthless of people continue to play. But this is an adequate description of any MMO game that promotes excessive farming. The game becomes addictive only because it takes advantage of a human weakness it does not inspire people to better themselves at the game which Baldur's Gate does.

As for the notion that I want a "hardcore RPG", I do not want a "hardcore RPG". I did not even bother finishing planescape torment and that was a "hardcore RPG". Baldur's Gate is far from a "hardcore RPG".

[Moganza]

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Moganza wrote...

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Baldur's Gate 3 would have to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate.. And if Baldur's Gate 3 would made to appeal to people who do not play Baldur's Gate then people who actually do play Baldur's Gate would be upset..

I dont agree with that statement. I hate to use the oldest of euphamisms but its not black and white. I'm sure they could keep the core Baldurs Gate experience and add new features to make it appeal to more people. I agree with someones previous post about there being a market for people who want hardcore RPGs that havent been 'casualised'. The closest thing to that right now which looks like a decent game to me is Diablo 3 which is taking the mick with the release date right now. There is of course Skyrim but thats quite a different experience then say Baldurs Gate.

Diablo 3 is an MMORPG just like Diablo 2 was. And I played Diablo 2 alongside BG2 back in that day and I'll tell you that both games are very different. In D2 one is just running through the game or at least some parts of the game over and over again just to farm for either experience or rare items. This is the replay value of Diablo 2, and because the high levels are capped at 99, the players must play for an exceeding amount of time just  to reach the level cap. My guess is that Blizzard was trying to develop the correct formula for a "WoW" type of game in the future. As for the combat system and spell system, Diablo 2 was very simplistic. The special attacks needed to be focused on, so people just ended up spamming something like guided arrow or frozen orb over and over again until we reach the higher character levels. There was no combination of attacks, just a singular spamming of one attack. That's why we got titles like "Hammerdin" etc. In any case the game itself breeds an environment where only the most ruthless of people continue to play. But this is an adequate description of any MMO game that promotes excessive farming. The game becomes addictive only because it takes advantage of a human weakness it does not inspire people to better themselves at the game which Baldur's Gate does.

As for the notion that I want a "hardcore RPG", I do not want a "hardcore RPG". I did not even bother finishing planescape torment and that was a "hardcore RPG". Baldur's Gate is far from a "hardcore RPG".

I'm sorry but what on Earth are you talking about. Diablo isnt an MMO. You clearly don't even know what it means. It means 'Massively Multiplayer Online'. And I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate is a hardcore RPG. How can you think Planescape Torment is hardcore and BG is not?
And I'm pretty sure the Diablo series is considered hardcore despite the button mashing. Seriously go google MMO and RPG because I think you're a little confused mate.

[Shadow_Leech07]

Moganza wrote...



I'm sorry but what on Earth are you talking about. Diablo isnt an MMO. You clearly don't even know what it means. It means 'Massively Multiplayer Online'. And I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate is a hardcore RPG. How can you think Planescape Torment is hardcore and BG is not?
And I'm pretty sure the Diablo series is considered hardcore despite the button mashing. Seriously go google MMO and RPG because I think you're a little confused mate.

What is your definition of hardcore?

In Diablo, one is playing a character that kills several enemies till at last he gets to the end where he faces off with Diablo. What's so hardcore about that? Diablo derives alot of material from the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost, however that's just the setting. Role-playing games are immersed in the story. Diablo and Baldur's Gate are very much combat oriented.

You might want to look up what a "MMORPG" is too. Or just look up Everquest and World of Worldcraft, Diablo was the precursor. You talk of semantics yet I wonder if you understand that in the gaming community we may use certain terminology which can mean other things then those in the English dictionary.

Modifié par Shadow_Leech07, 19 juin 2011 - 02:26 .

[Moganza]

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Moganza wrote...



I'm sorry but what on Earth are you talking about. Diablo isnt an MMO. You clearly don't even know what it means. It means 'Massively Multiplayer Online'. And I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate is a hardcore RPG. How can you think Planescape Torment is hardcore and BG is not?
And I'm pretty sure the Diablo series is considered hardcore despite the button mashing. Seriously go google MMO and RPG because I think you're a little confused mate.

What is your definition of hardcore?

In Diablo, one is playing a character that kills several enemies till at last he gets to the end where he faces off with Diablo. What's so hardcore about that? Diablo derives alot of material from the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost, however that's just the setting. Role-playing games are immersed in the story. Diablo and Baldur's Gate are very much combat oriented.

You might want to look up what a "MMORPG" is too. Or just look up Everquest and World of Worldcraft, Diablo was the precursor. You talk of semantics yet I wonder if you understand that in the gaming community we may use certain terminology which can mean other things then those in the English dictionary.

Lol MMORPG can only be used as massively multiplayer online role playing game. There is no other definition and can only be used as a genre for games like WOW and Guild Wars. You can only have 4 player coop for diablo therefore its not an MMORPG fullstop.

Here's a Wikipedia Definition

"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game'spersistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.MMORPGs are played throughout the world.[1] Worldwide revenues for MMORPGs exceeded half a billion dollars in 2005,[2] and Western revenues exceeded US$1 billion in 2006.[3] In 2008, Western consumer spending on subscription MMOGs grew to $1.4 billion.[4] World of Warcraft, a popular MMORPG, had more than 12 million subscribers as of October, 2010.[5]"

As for whats hardcore I honestly dont know, most are opinionated views anyway.

[Shadow_Leech07]

Moganza wrote...

Lol MMORPG can only be used as massively multiplayer online role playing game. There is no other definition and can only be used as a genre for games like WOW and Guild Wars. You can only have 4 player coop for diablo therefore its not an MMORPG fullstop.

Huh?  In Diablo you have player versus player, the entire thing is very similar to World of Warcraft, and while I've never played WoW I have watched people spend hours upon hours playing that game to no end. Yes I literally sat there and watched them out of sheer boredom because I was waiting on traffic. Of course this is all subjective so there really isn't a point to arguing this, I just wanted to point out that there existed a terminology of MMORPG and that I did not somehow create(invented the terminology as you mentioned....I did not mention MMO or RPG. in such context)

As for whats hardcore I honestly dont know, most are opinionated views anyway.

But you're the one who brought the terminology in the first place!

I agree with someones previous post about there being a market for people who want hardcore RPGs that havent been 'casualised'. The closest thing to that right now which looks like a decent game to me is Diablo 3 which is taking the mick with the release date right now. There is of course Skyrim but thats quite a different experience then say Baldurs Gate.

(I bolded your previous using of the terminology.) So let me get this straight. You toss something out and then when I ask you to define what you mean you say you don't know? Sorry I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore either.

Modifié par Shadow_Leech07, 19 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[Moganza]

I never tried to define Hardcore. I just said what i considered to be hardcore. Which is why I ended it by saying its opinionated. I just find it bizarre that u find Planescape hardcore and BG not when they are incredibly similar.
As for Diablo being an MMORPG, blizzard themselves define it as an action-rpg. Need I say more?

Modifié par Moganza, 20 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[Shadow_Leech07]

Moganza wrote...

I never tried to define Hardcore. I just said what i considered to be hardcore. Which is why I ended it by saying its opinionated. I just find it bizarre that u find Planescape hardcore and BG not when they are incredibly similar.
As for Diablo being an MMORPG, blizzard themselves define it as an action-rpg. Need I say more?

Yes and I wanted you to define what was your take on what a hardcore RPG was. That's why I asked you. Because I didn't want to be attacking a constantly moving target in an argument.

Before I get to your next point, here's the main difference between Planescape Torment and Baldur's Gate. In Planescape Torment you can actually talk your way out of things. The game actually gives alternatives to fighting. In Baldur's Gate, this is less so apparent. Yeah there are some good role playing moments, one can get ambushed and pay all gold, but who really does that in a computer game? The game focuses more on combat tactics such as using the terrain or the correct potions or spells. Fight or flight...etc that is what Baldur's Gate is about. In Planescape Torment, it's all about the dialogue and some sparse amounts of fighting. When one roleplays one is actually immersed in the character which consequently require alot of dialogue because how can one role play without the correct dialogue. Say for instance I role play a famous person, I would need to use several speeches or writings from the said person. Hence the concept of a role-playing game. Can you truly say that Baldur's Gate's main focus is on roleplaying? Because that's what a hardcore rpg is all about.

On your next point you mention that Blizzard defined Diablo as an action rpg. If Blizzard wished to market Diablo as a fighting game, would you just categorize it as such? When Bioware said that Dragon Age was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, would you take that as a fact? Just because corporations say things doesn't mean they are true. In any case the capabilities back then were not quite as they are now. Games like WoW are the next step from games like Diablo so perhaps you're right that it isn't a MMORPG but trust me, games like Diablo share many of the same concepts(running on the treadmill, player kill, etc) as traditional MMORPGs. I did mention Diablo being a precursor to WoW didn't I? I think we are getting off topic here so if you wish to discuss this furthur I will be happy to in private message.

[BronxH]

Te main problem with BG3 is that Atari still owns the D&D/FR rights. As per my knowledge they still have financial problems and with the announcement of the Neverwinter MMO it is very unlikely that they start to develop another FR RPG.

 

[Moganza]

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...

Moganza wrote...

I never tried to define Hardcore. I just said what i considered to be hardcore. Which is why I ended it by saying its opinionated. I just find it bizarre that u find Planescape hardcore and BG not when they are incredibly similar.
As for Diablo being an MMORPG, blizzard themselves define it as an action-rpg. Need I say more?

Yes and I wanted you to define what was your take on what a hardcore RPG was. That's why I asked you. Because I didn't want to be attacking a constantly moving target in an argument.

Before I get to your next point, here's the main difference between Planescape Torment and Baldur's Gate. In Planescape Torment you can actually talk your way out of things. The game actually gives alternatives to fighting. In Baldur's Gate, this is less so apparent. Yeah there are some good role playing moments, one can get ambushed and pay all gold, but who really does that in a computer game? The game focuses more on combat tactics such as using the terrain or the correct potions or spells. Fight or flight...etc that is what Baldur's Gate is about. In Planescape Torment, it's all about the dialogue and some sparse amounts of fighting. When one roleplays one is actually immersed in the character which consequently require alot of dialogue because how can one role play without the correct dialogue. Say for instance I role play a famous person, I would need to use several speeches or writings from the said person. Hence the concept of a role-playing game. Can you truly say that Baldur's Gate's main focus is on roleplaying? Because that's what a hardcore rpg is all about.

On your next point you mention that Blizzard defined Diablo as an action rpg. If Blizzard wished to market Diablo as a fighting game, would you just categorize it as such? When Bioware said that Dragon Age was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, would you take that as a fact? Just because corporations say things doesn't mean they are true. In any case the capabilities back then were not quite as they are now. Games like WoW are the next step from games like Diablo so perhaps you're right that it isn't a MMORPG but trust me, games like Diablo share many of the same concepts(running on the treadmill, player kill, etc) as traditional MMORPGs. I did mention Diablo being a precursor to WoW didn't I? I think we are getting off topic here so if you wish to discuss this furthur I will be happy to in private message.

I'll just end it here then. For me a hardcore rpg is an rpg that hasnt been watered down for the casuals. Thats my idea of a hardcore rpg, and just so we're clear here i never critcised ur idea of a hardcore rpg. I only thought it strange that you would call Planescape hardcore and BG not.
As for MMORPG maybe ur right in that it was the precursor for MMORPG but it certainly was not an MMORPG and i think the developers are in the best position to judge what genre their game belongs to. I still think BG has more roleplaying elements than what u give it for but again i guess thats also opinionated so i wont argue with u on that. Hopefully all is now resolved

[BelgarathMTH]

Isn't there a legal clause in the licensure of the D&D brand name that says any new game release after the publication of fourth edition must use fourth edition rules and lore?

As to game definitions, I do not see Baldur's Gate and Diablo as the same genre. I would call Baldur's Gate a "traditional" or "Western" style RPG, and Diablo is an "action" or "Eastern" style RPG. There are very distinct differences. I find the articles from TVTropes.com very helpful here:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ActionRPG

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WesternRPG

Interestingly, they list Diablo under both categories, so even their Wiki-style collaborators can't completely agree on how to classify these things. I would put Diablo firmly under "action RPG". If you follow the links to specific games, you get insights into the how and why of trying to classify them. Under the article for Diablo, they define it as I do as an "action RPG".

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Diablo

And for Baldur's Gate:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlenhv310a8odku

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 20 juin 2011 - 03:14 .

[Qyburn]

I don't see Wizards of the Coast approving any new products from Atari (or whoever holds the license these days) that use/promote a system it chose to abandon/retire. They want you to be pulled in by the computer games and go out and buy novels and rulebooks. Getting people interested in out-of-print material does not seem to be part of their business model, whether it's the computer games or the pen-and-paper stuff.

So forgetting the NWN MMO for a second, the next party-based BG/IWD/NWN-style RPG in the Forgotten Realms will almost certainly be 4e, and since 4e has been tied in closely with the nuking of the FR, the new story will be set in the post-Spellplague era some 100 years after the BG games took place in-setting.

On the positive side, I think this allows them to pick up the "Baldur's Gate story" fresh if they choose to do so. Most of the principle figures from the saga will be dead (whether assassinated, killed in combat, or dead of illness or old age).

At any rate, I happen to think WotC and Atari missed the boat completely with respect to a Baldur's Gate 3. In retrospect, had I been 'running the show' and known what was coming I would have used BG3 to herald the end of 3.5e, and let the epic merging of Abir and Toril play out cinematically on your monitor. /shrug

Very loosely, the party's goal would have been to stop Cyric from killing Mystra. Among the possible options would be to resurrect Bhaal using the remaining taint at Boarseky Bridge (or try to claim it for oneself); when you did this an "NPC of destiny" emerges and "steals" the essence. He becomes a "forced party member" as you race against time to stop Cyric. You come close, defeating several powerful guardians/minions, but you ultimately fail. The cataclysm begins and your party is dumped in some pocket realm amidst the shuffle of planes, awaiting a new PC and party from Baldur's Gate 4 using 4e rules in the "new" Forgotten Realms to come rescue you. You could definitely get a game 4 and 5 out of the quest to rescue this "NPC of destiny" and help him kill Cyric to establish a new God of Murder IMO. This would have had the added advantage of allowing WotC to make a canon character into their God of Murder. Your PC would have become perhaps a priest of this god, a mistress, or even a mortal rival depending on how you played them.

I think rather unfortunately WotC has chosen to consider computer gaming as a rival rather than a partner (some of the 4e Essentials content basically comes out and says 'This is so much better than playing a game on a computer isn't it?!!11 Huh?!!!1 HUH?!!!!!!!!!11111'), to the point that they've tried to make their pen-and-paper game more appealing to players who play computer games. This is occurring even as they rely more and more on computers to "protect" their IP.

And frankly I think WotC has never really understood the value that exists in their settings, both from a popular point of view (such as the beloved uber characters of the Forgotten Realms, a number of whom are now canonically dead) and a historical one. I can't help but contrast this to what Blizzard did in establishing a continuity from WarCraft I all the way through the latest expansion. They've constantly developed their WarCraft property from the beginning, never fulling abandoning the old as they built the new around it. Whereas, WotC has a habit of bulldozing everything hoping your forgot what was there before.

[Son of Imoen]

That's really an epic idea, Qyburn. Makes me want to reload real life, take the community back some years and make you the chief storywriter of Wizards of the Coast. Very imaginative thinking. It often happens I want to reload real life, like reloading the latest elections in Holland untill the result more favorite. Alas, real life is the ultimate no-reload challenge - no choice but to face the outcome!

[Redcoat]

My questions is this: if there ever were a Baldur's Gate 3, what would it be about, exactly? Excluding the Dark Alliance games, the BG series was always about the Bhaalspawn, whose story came to a very definite conclusion in Throne of Bhaal. And don't say, "Oh, the game could be about his child!" That's just lame.