Baldur's Gate 3 on it's way?

NWN 2, KOTOR 2, Fallout 2. None of them were direct sequels to their previous games. Why would BG3 have to be a direct sequel to BG2? BG2 was a direct sequel to BG1, but there's no law of the gaming industry that says that once you make direct sequels you can only make direct sequels.

Set it in Baldur's Gate and the Sword Coast, make a new story while possibly keeping a few characters or companions, and BAM, Baldur's Gate 3.

 

First of all it doesn't have to be related to the story of the previous games. It could just make use of the name and that's it.

Second, I doubt that Bio are interested in creating BG 3 straight after the release of the so-called...spiritual successor to BG series.

Finally, the statement is far too vague even for making speculation out of it.

 

They did. Neverwinter is the FR city, Neverwinter Nights was the AOL game, dumbass.

 

I think it's safe to assume that any BG3 would use the 4th edition rules.

In 4th ed the Forgotten Realms have moved on considerably from where they were when BG/BG2 came out.

First, it's 100 years since those games. Second, even the geography of the FR world has changed (a whole new continent has arrived, for instance).

Any BG3 will likely be required to reflect these changes due to licensing agreements, and thus is unlikely to directly continue the story of the first 2 games in any event.

Plus just because a game has the phrase "Baldur's Gate" somehwere in the title is no guarentee that it will bear much resemblence to the original games or even be a CRPG/PC title.

 

"NWN 2, KOTOR 2, Fallout 2. None of them were direct sequels to their previous games. Why would BG3 have to be a direct sequel to BG2? BG2 was a direct sequel to BG1, but there's no law of the gaming industry that says that once you make direct sequels you can only make direct sequels."

Actually, all trhee of those games are direct sequels. The evnts of the first game play a part of the setup, and background, and influence the sequels in various obvious and not so obvious ways. But, otehrwise, i agree, there is no rule that a sequel; has to be a continuation. If anything, the FF series proves this.


"They did. Neverwinter is the FR city, Neverwinter Nights was the AOL game, dumbass."

Smart ass comments aren't allowed unless by me.

 

I know you have trouble reading, so I am going to re-post this for your convenience and see if you can figure out where your math might be slightly off.

Near the end of its run in 1997 the game had 115,000 players and typically hosted 2,000 adventurers during prime evening hours, a 4000% increase over 1991.

 

All 1000 of them. I doubt all 115k players still give a crap the year BIO's NWN came out. nice try, though. And, even if ALL 115K bought BIO's NWN, that's still a small bucket of all the people who bought BIO's NWN. I seriously doubt BIO picked that name ';cause they though tthe game would SELL MORE compared to the BG name. they did it, to 'honour'; the fallen heroes of a dead game.

 

There's no reason that couldn't happen in BG3. It just doesn't have to continue, as you put it, the story of BG1 and 2.

 

Nice attempt at spin. You said "all 1000, as shown above". Since I was the only one who posted any subscription numbers at all regarding the original NWN, you were obviously referring to my post, and there was no sign of the number "1000" within.

Look, I know it hurts to admit you were wrong, but it gets easier with time. Trust me, I have to do it all the time. It is okay to be wrong on the internet.

 

"Nice attempt at spin. You said "all 1000, as shown above". Since I was the only one who posted any subscription numbers at all regarding the original NWN, you were obviously referring to my post, and there was no sign of the number "1000" within."

You just don't understand the notion of mocking. I was mocking you, and others who tried to claim that BIo chose the NWN to some how 'cash' in to all the original NWN game's fan. The point is that the number itself is irrevant, and that to imply BIO's NWN was a success because of the same name of a dead game that used to share the same name but was actually only mildly successful (at best). If name recoginzation wa sBIo's goal in nchoosing the name, they would have just called NWN BG3 and be done with it. Or, *gasp*, D&D: Dungeon Master or D&D: Online.

 

Fixed

 

Actually, I was also guessing that trying to use the name of the original AOL NWN as a basis for the hopeful success of the new NWN was fairly unlikely, but then I guess sarcastic phrases like "epic AOL Games MMO smash hit of the same name" may not translate all that well in text format.

 

K.

 

I hope they let you import your char from ToB. I ended a game as a 40/37 mage/cleric. It sure would make things easier at the start!

 

Were there any cRPGs set in Waterdeep? Isn't Waterdeep the biggest city on the Sword Coast?

 

eye of the beholder 1 played under waterdeep !

 

Moonstone was set around Waterdeep.

 

HotU gave you a four-or-five-area cocktease of Waterdeep if that counts

 

Maybe they will revive Jefferson!

by that I mean literally cause the second president of the united states to rise from his grave because there's a bigger chance of that happening than black isle's bg3 coming out

 

John Adams is going to rise from the grave tonight and dismember you for your ignorance.

 

oh shit third FUCK

 

I had no idea that was supposed to be in FR.

 

From what I remember no one wants to do Waterdeep because the setting is to well developed. Hard to make things new and interesting when the fanboys have all 300 books/supplements/box sets about the area and will throw a fit if you mess what they know to be the complete and unchangeable truth.

 

Because it wasn't:

http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=743