Hmm. I guess I really don't care whether they ruin a franchise or not (read further before you kill me over this statement). I mean that in the the sense that if they make BG3 for example, and it sucks, then as far as I'm concerned it just never happened. It really isn't important to me. I still love Starwars even though 90% of the franchise sucks, and I just choose to ignore that which does.
I'll be happy if they decide to BGIII, because there is a chance of it being good, just as I'm happy for Fallout 3. If I feel they're bad or stay untrue to their titles, I'll just throw them aside and that's that.
So, of course I'll be very disappointed if they made a crappy BGIII, but I'd rather they tried and failed than not try at all.
I think BGIII would have a high chance to be awful...and probably very hard to pull off *believeably*. Not to mention *well*. Seriously, the Baldur's Gate saga is one of those that is just perfect the way it is. I'm not saying it's impossible. I just think it's probably too much work to even come up with a plot that would not ring with "Hey, let's make a sequel to earn more money!". Anything that falls under "New challenges/problems/adventures/trials/ for the protagonist of so-and-so" is a classic, but very weak plot outlook - And the plot of Baldur's Gate was of a much higher quality overall, so it would definitely be a step down. What I *could* see being made, and made well, would be a BGIII that tells a story related to the original story, but not with CHARNAME as the protagonist...oh, and not their child/grandchild/uncle-twice-removed as main character either, please.
For some things it works. The new Indiana Jones film worked in my opinion, but only because the movies were not meant to be taken too seriously to start with("Temple of Doom" was admittedly a bit more serious). Even though some rabid fans say "Oh my got, this is awful! This is not like the original movies. This is plot is cheesy!" - they were all kind of cheesy at points, though always in a good way. And because of *THAT* it was not impossible to make one last sequel (which I think gave the whole Indiana Jones series a nice ending.). Though admittedly, some of the original scripts were *WAY* out (yes, even more way out than the final product was). Could have done without the Monkey scene, though.
Anyway, I digress. Baldur's Gate was a great game with a great story that came to a perfect conclusion with the end of Throne of Bhaal. There's still stuff that could have been done different, but overall, it's great. I am glad that I am not the only one who says that yes, it was great, but that that didn't mean there should be a sequel if the way it is it is great. A sequel will only ruin it.
Fallout is a bit different. The games are more like individual stories each, sharing only the setting and some relationships. There is no problem with adding another game to the series. I am not saying that it is guaranteed to be as good, but at the same time it is also not guaranteed to be bad. You're creating an individual game in one setting, not the direct continuation of one specific story. Whether it is good or bad just depends on the quality of the game, and of course if it represents the *setting* properly.
Another series of games that work in a similar way is the Elder Scrolls games (Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire, Redguard, Morrowind, and Oblivion, for example.), which all have the same setting, but tell a different story from that setting each. They all have their pros and cons. But if they're good games or not is, and should only be judged by the quality of the one game, separately from the other games in the series.
(By the way, when comparing the nature of the Elder Scrolls games to the Fallout games in that they are not continuously telling one story, I didn't think of the fact that Fallout 3 is being developed by the same company as the Elder Scrolls games. I only realised it after I had written the comparison down. Still, it's a good comparison, so I won't change it.)
Maybe it's just me seeing this this way. I guess I see games as a way of telling a story, so the general game mechanics are not that important, as long as the story is good. Of course the game should be fun too, and playable as well. But the story is the most important part. I do know there's some gameplay things unrelated to story that I always like about a game (like being able to explore freely in Baldur's Gate 1, and possibly running into an encounter way above your skill level, resulting in the complete obliteration of your party. Funfun!
[I'm serious. Being pampered by games gets boring too fast, and is unrealistic.] , but I am willing to overlook bad sides as long as I think the story makes it worth enduring that. -
Edited by Jazhara7, 19 September 2008 - 12:02 PM.
