203 replies to this topic

[Grunker]

A BGIII as a prequel could be good as long as it contained the essential elements of the first two (namely a good storyline, indepth NPC's, etc) and I do not think it should concentrate on the Bhaal saga at all.  However, I did like the idea of being in the early days of Baldur's Gate.

Yea, that's one of the positive things I remember from the article (it said that the prequel would propably be set in the early days of Baldur's Gate) and I concur that that might make it a little more interesting.

I think the people here on Forgotten Wars are a lot more positive about BGIII than we were at DLTC

[Darkreaper06]

As one who has played through all the BG Games I have to say I think a prequal is a bad idea , I mean I think we have all grown accustomed to being the PC from the first two games and we like it that way . it even says that the Throne of Bhall was not your last adventure . If they want to do it right they should make a game that runs off the last one with two separate story lines one if you become a god and one if you became fully mortal.

[Shed]

But that would be two games, wouldn't it ? By ToB the player was too powerful to continue from there, imo. I'd far sooner start from scratch again. Creating new characters is such fun !

[T.G.Maestro]

By ToB the player was too powerful to continue from there, imo. I'd far sooner start from scratch again. Creating new characters is such fun

Exactly.

[Feanor]

As one who has played through all the BG Games I have to say I think a prequal is a bad idea , I mean I think we have all grown accustomed to being the PC from the first two games and we like it that way . it even says that the Throne of Bhall was not your last adventure . If they want to do it right they should make a game that runs off the last one with two separate story lines one if you become a god and one if you became fully mortal.

A BGIII can be excellently connected to one the stories from BG1, BG2 or TOB, but not using the same character. Practically, the PC from TOB won't be able to gain new levels anymore, so a BGIII designed this way won't be a classical RPG.

[Grunker]

But that would be two games, wouldn't it ? By ToB the player was too powerful to continue from there, imo. I'd far sooner start from scratch again. Creating new characters is such fun !

Yipee!

[Tom]

Creating new characters is such fun !

True, but whats stopping you from doing so in a sequel to BG2? I cant see them forcing you to import a character... Nevertheless I agree, a character continuing on would be far too powerful.

[Feanor]

Creating new characters is such fun !

True, but whats stopping you from doing so in a sequel to BG2? I cant see them forcing you to import a character... Nevertheless I agree, a character continuing on would be far too powerful.

I really don't understand why people who speak of BG3 are so obsessed of taking the Bhaalspawn from BG2 in the new game. Think of IWD1 and IWD2, Diablo and Diablo 2, NWN and his expansion HotU, the Elder Scrolls series. Some are very good sequels even if the main character from the first game did not make in the sequel.

[T.G.Maestro]

I really don't understand why people who speak of BG3 are so obsessed of taking the Bhaalspawn from BG2 in the new game. Think of IWD1 and IWD2, Diablo and Diablo 2, NWN and his expansion HotU, the Elder Scrolls series. Some are very good sequels even if the main character from the first game did not make in the sequel.

Mainly because there is a significant difference between the main characters of these games: while there is no "specific" PC in most of the games you mention, the Bhaalspawn in the BG series is unique, and cannot be replaced with another one. All the other games had "nameless" heroes as PCs, yet BG had *THE* Bhaalspawn as PC.

[Tom]

I really don't understand why people who speak of BG3 are so obsessed of taking the Bhaalspawn from BG2 in the new game. Think of IWD1 and IWD2, Diablo and Diablo 2, NWN and his expansion HotU, the Elder Scrolls series. Some are very good sequels even if the main character from the first game did not make in the sequel.

Thats a good point, actually, see below.

Mainly because there is a significant difference between the main characters of these games: while there is no "specific" PC in most of the games you mention, the Bhaalspawn in the BG series is unique, and cannot be replaced with another one. All the other games had "nameless" heroes as PCs, yet BG had *THE* Bhaalspawn as PC.

Well the obvious thing to do in a sequel then would be to make the PC not the Bhaalspawn. However for it to be a sequel it would have to have some sort of link to the previous ones, in which case they might very well end up having to make two seperate games - one for the world in which there is a new god of murder and one in which there is not.

[NiGHTMARE]

Wait, I thought the main character in HotU was the same character from NWN. SoU did have a different main character, however.

[Grunker]

Wait, I thought the main character in HotU was the same character from NWN.  SoU did have a different main character, however.

Actually, the hero of Neverwinter (from the original game) only appears in that storyline, whereas the hero in SoU and HotU are the same.



I agree with T.G. Both the first, the second and the "third" (ToB) game was with *THE* Bhaalspawn as the main character.

Other than that, Tom has a good point when he points out you'd have to make to different worlds. + the creators of the Forgotten Realms would have to speak with them because a reincarnation of Bhaal ought to be in the next FR campaign setting if a game had done it.

[Feanor]

I really don't understand why people who speak of BG3 are so obsessed of taking the Bhaalspawn from BG2 in the new game. Think of IWD1 and IWD2, Diablo and Diablo 2, NWN and his expansion HotU, the Elder Scrolls series. Some are very good sequels even if the main character from the first game did not make in the sequel.

Mainly because there is a significant difference between the main characters of these games: while there is no "specific" PC in most of the games you mention, the Bhaalspawn in the BG series is unique, and cannot be replaced with another one. All the other games had "nameless" heroes as PCs, yet BG had *THE* Bhaalspawn as PC.

Truly, but a BG3 could be connected not to the Bhaalspawn character, but to the events from one of the game. This would be enough to justify the title and avoid the problems raised by the multiple epilogues from TOB.

[NiGHTMARE]

I'm not sure why the name "Baldur's Gate" would only be justified if it had the Bhaalspawn in it. If the series had been called "The Bhaalspawn saga" then yes, it would be.

If you want something to complain about, how about the fact Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn doesn't actually feature Baldur's Gate?

[Grunker]

I'm not sure why the name "Baldur's Gate" would only be justified if it had the Bhaalspawn in it.  If the series had been called "The Bhaalspawn saga" then yes, it would be.

If you want something to complain about, how about the fact Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn doesn't actually feature Baldur's Gate?

Exactly Nightmare, that was what I was trying to say:

It may be CALLED Baldur's Gate but it's ABOUT BHAALSPAWN.

[oralpain]

It doesn't necessarily have to be about anything. It just needs to be named BGIII to mooch off the name recognition.

[Jyzabyl]

BGIII - Child of Bhaalspawn. You grow up in the shadow of your Parent, hero of Baldur's Gate etc, etc, carrying your Parents blood taint. But it's time to leave the family home and make a name for yourself.

[Kulyok]

But what if a group of BGII players hate the very idea of having children?

Or, for example, a 13-year old player buys BG1, BG2, BG3 and is shocked by the idea she has become a mother? (and it can be a shock).

[Archmage Silver]

That does not include all kids at all.