Baldur's Gate - Enhanced Edition Tidbits

[Arkadia7]

darkling is right, of course the next game (if it got made) would be titled Baldur's Gate 3. It might have a sub-title as well, for example, "Baldur's Gate 3: The Wizard's Tower". And it could have absolutely nothing to do with the the original Baldur's Gate story, but just set in the same world of Forgotten Realms with a brand new story, but it is very likely they would use the Baldur's Gate name for recognition and to help the sales.

 

[purpleblob]

@DeepO and Maylander:

I know where you guys are coming from, but that's two different thing imo.

BG series were always about Bhaalspawn. For me (and for many others) BG"3" would have to concern Bhaalspawn or it doesn't make sense. Much like Halo series or Mass Effect series. Halo 3 without Master Chief is not a Halo for me because Halo 1 & 2 were about Master Chief (what steps he took to save Earth etc. Essentially, it was his story). Spin-offs are different story (e.g Halo: Reach and Halo: ODST) because then people won't expect it to be story of Chief.

NWN was different, yes. There was no continuation from 1 to 2 (other than the fact Nasher is still douche ruler of NWN). That's why if there were going to be NWN3, I couldn't care less whether it is about hero from NWN1 or Shard-bearer or even new hero. Same goes for FF series.

In my mind, it boils down to this: Is the series about "particular hero" or "particular setting"? BG, Halo and ME series falls into "hero" catergorie while NWN, Fallout, Elder Scrolls falls into "setting/area/universe" catergorie.

 

[Dhruin]

See, for me, that only becomes apparent as the series progresses. My original BG box doesn't say anything about being a trilogy or the Bhalspawn story - instead, it talks at length about the Forgotten Realms setting - and virtually nothing else. The first game was as much about the setting as anything else. If they had really planned a BG2 all along, wouldn't they have named it a bit more flexibly than a city that isn't even in the second game?

Anyway, we obviously see it differently. I can't see any reason why "Mass Effect" has to be about Shepard, either. Can't comment on Halo.

 

[purpleblob]

See, for me, that only becomes apparent as the series progresses. My original BG box doesn't say anything about being a trilogy or the Bhalspawn story - instead, it talks at length about the Forgotten Realms setting - and virtually nothing else. The first game was as much about the setting as anything else. If they had really planned a BG2 all along, wouldn't they have named it a bit more flexibly than a city that isn't even in the second game?

Anyway, we obviously see it differently. I can't see any reason why "Mass Effect" has to be about Shepard, either. Can't comment on Halo.

I'm a little confused here. It doesn't become apparent to me either until I play the series before I can judge whether the series about "hero" or "setting/area/universe" unless stated clearly beforehand.

And ofcourse Bioware didn't plan out sequal (BG2) until they saw success of BG1. But the fact is, BG series has already progressed as "hero" setting by making both BG1 and BG2 as "story of Bhaalspawn", so it wouldn't be BG3 if the story is not about Bhaalspawn (and for that matter, there shouldn't be BG3 because Bhaalspawn story ended).

Same goes with ME series as far as I can see. It's story of "Shepard". What steps he/she took to discover Reapers, their plot against universe etc. If Bioware decides to make ME4 and if the main protagonist is not Shepard, it will urk a lot of people out there.

 

[Dhruin]

I was trying to post while pretending to entertain relatives, so I waffled.

If the title is non-specific and it wasn't planned from the beginning as a self-contained series then an appropriate "BG3" is no more forced than BG2.