|
On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now?
So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit.
|
On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit.
How about witcher 2? A very succesful game and PC only.
|
On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit.
Try using a different example, Diablo 3 is going to be released on consoles.
|
Will they release it in HD with a modernized interface/controls? I had trouble to get into the game a while back when playing because the interface and low resolution/gfx felt a bit dated for me personally. I always tend to have this issue with older games that I did not play when I was young, shame I did not play BG back then. Anyway I will definitely keep my eyes out on this release 
|
On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now?
On March 20 2012 21:51 Volrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? Having an opinion is not "being right". You're entitled to predict what YOU THINK will happen, it still won't matter the outcome. You're annoying. They can get it right, ever heard of kickstarter or successful indie projects? But they can still fail. You're just trying to guess what's going to happen.
On March 20 2012 22:34 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit. How about witcher 2? A very succesful game and PC only.
Lol you already got corrected by 2 responses but I'll add on.
The way you say "I'm right" already makes you seem like prick who thinks everything he says is correct. The fact that you already assume you're correct on the success level of a game that hasn't even been made yet just makes it worse. And the other responses already told you that a game does not have to be made for console to be commercially viable & successful. The sad part is, you don't even address the main argument of my original post.
Sadistx....do yourself a favor and please don't embarrass yourself on this thread anymore.
|
DLC's for half the map and quests, online play only, dumbed down classes and NPCs, cheesy plot centered around angst and a cheesy romance, good bye Baldur's Gate, don't worry, I'll always remeber when you were good.
It doesn't have to do with who the devs are, it has to do with how much power the devs have over their marketing department and investors. The companys were the devs have freedom over investor pressure can be counted with 1 hand.
|
On March 20 2012 22:58 Bartuc wrote:Will they release it in HD with a modernized interface/controls? I had trouble to get into the game a while back when playing because the interface and low resolution/gfx felt a bit dated for me personally. I always tend to have this issue with older games that I did not play when I was young, shame I did not play BG back then. Anyway I will definitely keep my eyes out on this release
You could take a look at widescreen mods, which allow you to play the game with modern resolutions. It does so by simply letting you view a larger area, but it makes the game much prettier on a larger monitor. I replayed BG2 last year on 1920:1080 and it looked really fine. I would still recommend playing it to anyone interested in the genre, the only thing really hampering the game is that you can only choose small resolutions in the original menu, which is easily resolved, and amazingly the game still plays just fine with larger resolutions, because since you also have a larger monitor, the UI elements which are now much smaller in comparison are still easily large enough to be used.
Also, i can't think that they would do a rerelease and NOT at least give you modern resolutions. I would also guess that they maybe modernize character animations and spell effects. I don't know what else they want to do, but those would be the most obvious nonintrusive methods to make the game look modern without actually changing anything about its gameplay.
I think most people basically want this to be a mostly unchanged game with improved graphics and UI, and maybe some additional content, which also seems to be what they are planning to produce.
|
On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit.
So... People are aware that D3 is going to have a console version right?... To be released later...
|
|
|
On March 20 2012 23:58 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit. So... People are aware that D3 is going to have a console version right?... To be released later...
That's not the point. The point is that a game can be PC only and commercially viable. Diablo 3 might not be the best example, since it will get a console version, but we all know blizzard doesn't need to release it on console too. Virtually all past blizzard games have been PC only. And as I said earlier, witcher 2 is also PC only ( for now). And if that hadn't been commercially viable then there wouldn't be a console version on the way.
|
On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now?
Just because you say you're right.. you're right? Ok.
They could fuck it up totaly if they tried to make BG3. they might actually kill boo in the opening video.
They might also make a shining star that takes the saga to new heights. Soaring past lord of the rings, star wars.. and hell even the twilight series..
The simple fact that you state anything without proof or showing to other people and other games that fuck things up does not make it true for a possible BG3.
There's no data that can prove one way or the other.
To make it a commercially viable project, they would not have to make it for consoles or for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles. There are several games that do not cater to the "audience that plays consoles", that still have been good games even from a commercial stand point.
There are games that have not been on the console market and still been a good project.
For baldurs gate it dont need an sequel, and i would prefer a remake of the old story.. with better gameplay and graphics.
They can change the ruleset if they wish.. doesnt matter much realy. and the game was pretty unforgiving in the start.
Sure i get it.. and the hard core RP man in me accepts that dnd could be damn unforgiving at the start. Roll a mage and take one hit to the head and you're out for a week
Though for a video game i dont realy feel thats the way to go.. shit i died again in the first fight due to RNG.. lets load again
I'm just going to hope that they dont fuck up the remake ^^
|
On March 21 2012 00:03 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 23:58 B00ts wrote:On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit. So... People are aware that D3 is going to have a console version right?... To be released later... That's not the point. The point is that a game can be PC only and commercially viable. Diablo 3 might not be the best example, since it will get a console version, but we all know blizzard doesn't need to release it on console too. Virtually all past blizzard games have been PC only. And as I said earlier, witcher 2 is also PC only ( for now). And if that hadn't been commercially viable then there wouldn't be a console version on the way.
Yea I get yea.. It just looked like people didn't know.. thats all
|
On March 20 2012 23:04 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 21:51 Volrath wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? Having an opinion is not "being right". You're entitled to predict what YOU THINK will happen, it still won't matter the outcome. You're annoying. They can get it right, ever heard of kickstarter or successful indie projects? But they can still fail. You're just trying to guess what's going to happen. Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 22:34 solidbebe wrote:On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit. How about witcher 2? A very succesful game and PC only. Lol you already got corrected by 2 responses but I'll add on. The way you say "I'm right" already makes you seem like prick who thinks everything he says is correct. The fact that you already assume you're correct on the success level of a game that hasn't even been made yet just makes it worse. And the other responses already told you that a game does not have to be made for console to be commercially viable & successful. The sad part is, you don't even address the main argument of my original post. Sadistx....do yourself a favor and please don't embarrass yourself on this thread anymore.
You're the one embarrassing yourself by putting words in my mouth and proving once more that you're unable to read. Not once did I mention anything about commercial viability or consoles or anything about the success of the game.
What I said, and I'll make this extremely simple for you, so you stop acting like a condescending asshole towards me in every post, is that the original BG(1,2) storyline does not need continuation and/or extension in BG3, and by artificially tying it to the brand name of Baldur's Gate and creating a game with entirely different gameplay, characters that bear NO relation to the original ones and dumbed down for the modern era gamers (compare witcher 1 to witcher 2 to understand what I mean by dumbed down) will ruin the name of Baldur's gate.
It _could_ be commercially successful with new technology or gameplay. Or it wouldn't. But the BG brand/name will be tarnished either way.
The way you say "I'm right" already makes you seem like prick who thinks everything he says is correct.
Not everything. But anything of substance that I say, because I fact check, think, and analyze before I post.
|
On March 22 2012 10:02 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 23:04 GhostOwl wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? On March 20 2012 21:51 Volrath wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? Having an opinion is not "being right". You're entitled to predict what YOU THINK will happen, it still won't matter the outcome. You're annoying. They can get it right, ever heard of kickstarter or successful indie projects? But they can still fail. You're just trying to guess what's going to happen. On March 20 2012 22:34 solidbebe wrote:On March 20 2012 22:08 Reivax wrote:On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now? So you're saying Diablo 3 is going to not be commercially viable since it's PC only? That makes me smile just a little bit. How about witcher 2? A very succesful game and PC only. Lol you already got corrected by 2 responses but I'll add on. The way you say "I'm right" already makes you seem like prick who thinks everything he says is correct. The fact that you already assume you're correct on the success level of a game that hasn't even been made yet just makes it worse. And the other responses already told you that a game does not have to be made for console to be commercially viable & successful. The sad part is, you don't even address the main argument of my original post. Sadistx....do yourself a favor and please don't embarrass yourself on this thread anymore. You're the one embarrassing yourself by putting words in my mouth and proving once more that you're unable to read. Not once did I mention anything about commercial viability or consoles or anything about the success of the game. What I said, and I'll make this extremely simple for you, so you stop acting like a condescending asshole towards me in every post, is that the original BG(1,2) storyline does not need continuation and/or extension in BG3, and by artificially tying it to the brand name of Baldur's Gate and creating a game with entirely different gameplay, characters that bear NO relation to the original ones and dumbed down for the modern era gamers (compare witcher 1 to witcher 2 to understand what I mean by dumbed down) will ruin the name of Baldur's gate. It _could_ be commercially successful with new technology or gameplay. Or it wouldn't. But the BG brand/name will be tarnished either way. Show nested quote +The way you say "I'm right" already makes you seem like prick who thinks everything he says is correct. Not everything. But anything of substance that I say, because I fact check, think, and analyze before I post.
who says it will be a continuation? why not just something else happening, a prequel, or whatever. and i doubt they would be stupid enough to think that the people that buy the EE (if it turns out how we hope) will be interested in any fancy crap which btw also usually costs more to make.
in the end you are complaining about a ton of ifs and maybes.
|
All this D&D rules talk killed the thread
|
On March 22 2012 14:09 Ian Ian Ian wrote:
All this D&D rules talk killed the thread
No, the lack of a New Baldur's Gate game killed this thread.
Also BG's uses adnd second edition rules and is set in the forgotten realms, so D&D and BGs sort of go hand in hand.
|
Shouldnt there have been more information and screenshots by now??
|
No, it will be by this evening
|
All this news is making me want to play BGII. I have only played BG 1 and I really really loved it (even as a kid, I think I was 12 when I first beat it). If I do decide to give in and snag BG 2 any suggestions on mods ect? Is it easy to use mods?
|
For 1st playthrough probably best to only use widescreen mod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
