Company News Obsidian Almost Got To Make Baldur's Gate 3

[Lockkaliber]

Couldn't it be that initially they were fine with giving away 25 million dollars, but then in 2008 when the recession hit the games industry like mad and companies were laying like thousands of employees off at a time, they didn't have the cash anymore?

That's exactly what the story was, it is not just speculation.

Atari was willing earlier, but after hard times hit it and it was acquired by Namco, they could not sustain the project.

Then why are people arguing wyrmie-kun?

 

[Jick Magger]

Couldn't it be that initially they were fine with giving away 25 million dollars, but then in 2008 when the recession hit the games industry like mad and companies were laying like thousands of employees off at a time, they didn't have the cash anymore?

That's exactly what the story was, it is not just speculation.

Atari was willing earlier, but after hard times hit it and it was acquired by Namco, they could not sustain the project.

Then why are people arguing wyrmie-kun?

Where do you think we are?

 

[Black]

That kinda explains why their first kickstarter is making a wannabe IE game instead of something truly of their own.

 

[Volourn]

"Mr. U?

You really can't spell Urquhart"

no u

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Now that we have Project Eternity, I don't really see the point of creating another Baldur's Gate game. Lock away the rights to the series and the Bhaalspawn storyline and destroy the key when it still has most of it's integrity intact.

 

[Tigranes]

ITT: People that don't know how much what kind of games cost.

I imagine I would be super crushed about this news, if not for P:E. So now I can afford to not really care.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Eh, games can cost tens of millions, RPG's and such, yes.
But all I'm saying is Atari are notorious penny pinchers.
With that kind of pricetag, given Atari's history, I would have doubts about how serious they were with the whole thing.
Especially since it appeared as if they kept putting off an answer and never really appeared enthused about the idea.

 

[Moribund]

If they were going to get the money at one point I take it back, though it sounded more to me like they never got beyond the first talks.

I know some AAA games cost 50-100 million though god knows why, but there's no way in hell anything obsidian has done had 25 million budget maybe ten.

 

[waywardOne]

Why does a potential BG3 elicit such emotion? It's not like there's even a consensus on what the plot would focus on. I can't be the only one that assumes that it'd be "Baldur's Gate 3" only because it'd likely take place on the Sword Coast with only passing references to the Bhaalspawn stuff.

 

[Jaesun]

Do I seriously need to explain the differences between:

IE style PC only game

AAA title on xbox 360, PS3, and PC



Seriously? Here on the Codex? WTF guys, you used to be beautiful.

Moribund is a shitposting alt retard. You are actually considering him as the codex? Because he is not.

 

[Gozma]

NWN2 was Baldur's Gate 3: Lets get this Cranked out Cheap and Shitty edition, I assume AAA BG3 would be the same design except with the Unreal Engine employed by the same tech wizards that made Alpha Protocol

Fuck I am an Obsidian fan I swear it's just so easy

 

[Oesophagus]

If Atari's idea was for BG3 to be a multi-platform AAA Mass Effect killer, then it would have been shit. So I'm glad it wasn't made

 

[Moribund]

My intelligent thoughts move out into the dex then die of loneliness, this is true.

 

[Spectacle]

Why does a potential BG3 elicit such emotion? It's not like there's even a consensus on what the plot would focus on. I can't be the only one that assumes that it'd be "Baldur's Gate 3" only because it'd likely take place on the Sword Coast with only passing references to the Bhaalspawn stuff.

For me, BG3 seemed like it would have been the best chance of another D&D game that isn't a hack&slash game with only cursory connection to the D&D rules.

 

[Zed]

"I call [Ubisoft] every year and I say ‘Hey, we'd love to make you a Might & Magic game," Urquhart said. "And they go, ‘We know.'"

Yeah and you better keep at it, Feargus.

"My favorite e-mail that I ever got from someone was like, ‘I just wanna tell you how angry I am about the ending of KOTOR II. After my third playthrough, I just feel...'"

Urquhart laughed. "I'm like... if you played through three times, it couldn't have been that bad!"

Codexer detected.

It almost feels like a fairy tale ending: after years of rushed projects, sudden cancellations, and brutal layoffs, Obsidian is suddenly in control of its own destiny. They've got two promising games on the way, and even just a few months ago, major publishers were knocking on their door: Urquhart told me he's been talking to Bethesda, Ubisoft, Warner Bros., and LucasArts.

"We would love to work on Fallout again," Urquhart said. "Hell, we would love to work in the Elder Scrolls universe. Nothing is going on at this point in time, but we talk about it all the time... I'd love to do a Fallout: New Vegas 2. I think a Fallout: New Vegas 2 would kick ass.

He's even got a dream project: Knights of the Old Republic III. On next-gen consoles.

Sounds like the third project could be KotoR3... or a Bethesda game. But Bethesda kind of fucked them over last time.

 

[Infinitron]

Wait for my newspost, Zed

 

[Zed]

Wait for my newspost, Zed

I thought this was it. man you gotta be faster if you're gonna tjing-paxa news.

Oh wait, yeah, this is the one where I say Trent Oster should suck a big one. I remember this news.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"Almost Got To" pretty much defines Obsidian all through their history. Should be their motto. "Obsidian: We almost get to."

 

[thesheeep]

The best thing about a BG3 would have been BG with a different ruleset.

I mean, sure, 2nd edition is way better than 4th (and whatever 5th will be, I guess), but it really pales in comparison to 3.5.

For the following rant I am assuming rules as seen in the BG series, and how well they serve a PC game (I won't make too many assumptions about PnP):

I'm not kidding. BG series are great games, but they would be vastly superior if they used 3.5.

Character progression in 2nd edition is just totally fucked up. Why do classes take a different amount of experience? That's just completely arbitrary, and a nice source of unbalanced nonsense.
If every class advances at the same XP, all is well, and 3rd edition shows that. This also balances out the classes, as now all of them feel equally powerful.
Generally progression in BG is too slow. When you start a character in BG, it can take 2-3 hours until you actually level up. That is simply not acceptable. If I wouldn't have been like 14 years old when I started playing it, I would never have found the time to play the games. Now don't get me started with ADD or something like that, I have put hundreds of our into BG and still do from time to time. But that painfully slow progression just sucks.

Another thing is, and here I think it really is the fault of the ruleset, that progression doesn't really feel like you get much stronger. With warriors, rangers, etc. you get more HP and can attack better. That's it. What a boring reward! With mages, bards and the like, you at least get some spells, at least something to show that you can do more than before. In 3.5, any class is interesting to level up, as you get more spells, more feats, talents, etc. There's something new and interesting coming with almost every level. Playing a Fighter in BG is the most boring thing ever, and although I put hundreds of hours into that game, I never played more than some hours with a Fighter. It's just soooo boring.

Also, combat is far more interesting in 3.5 than it is in 2nd edition. Just imagine BG was turn-based (I know you can do it!) and compare it to KotC. Who wins, huh?
In BG, playing any Fighter-style character is nothing more than "Go there, hit". That is all a Fighter can do. And as if that wasn't worse enough already, your party just needs such a meat shield (at least in early levels). Again, in 3.5 any class can do multiple things that are at least mildly interesting. Also, you're not outright dead if you do not have a meat shield.

Which gets me to another weak point of 2nd edition in BG. Early level combat is ridiculous. If you are not a Fighter, everything will kill you. Everything. I think I was even killed by those Candlekeep assassins multiple times. That's a tutorial fight. It should NOT do that....
Okay, early levels are also a pain in 3rd edition, but it's not that horrible.

So.. you know, instead of BG3, how about porting BG series to 3.5?

 

[Volourn]

"Why do classes take a different amount of experience? That's just completely arbitrary, and a nice source of unbalanced nonsense."

What an idiot. A mage is more powerful than a rogue. That's why. It's not arbitrary fucknutz.Rogues are not equally powerful to mages. never were never will be. Though they keep getting 'special' powers to try to make it so and all it does is make them more mage like.

Progression is not 'too slow' in BG. It's too fast. 2-3 hours? FFS You are a piece of shit.

All those fancy combat feats in 3e are in 2e. BIO was too lazy to use them though. Called shots, disarm, etc. were there. FFS

If you died multipel times to CK assasssins that's on you and your loserness not the game.

 

[Minttunator]

Volly is pretty much right. The classes aren't balanced in 3.5 - if played right, casters are still VASTLY more powerful than rogues and warriors, especially at higher levels. The low-level combat also isn't all that different from 2E - mages still have 1d4+CON HP and can still get one-shot by most mobs. It's interesting to note that these problems were sort of fixed in 4E (maybe that's what you meant, thesheep?) - but most people seem to hate 4E, so maybe these problems weren't all that serious after all?

 

[Major_Blackhart]

What do people think of Pathfinder then?

 

[Moribund]

Nah, rogue has always been equal or superior to mage in PnP. It's just a bit harder to make that a reality in a crpg, and in IE especially thief is a bit gimped and mage has extreme cheating going on to make them harder.

Fighters with best kit are always better than mage anyway, arrows are just OP and can eliminate anything in any edition, and in newer editions you can make a fighter/barbarian that can get to and dismantle any mage in one round.

In 3.5 they really made a lot of cheese for the monsters, so fighters can't mow down 8 dragons in a row. They made some OP stuff for mages at epic level but thief is still able to cut mages to sausage if they multiclass with barbarian and fighter to get good feats.

Like I said in another thread, all sawyer's comments just showed he was totally clueless on DnD, and I find it hard to believe he plays PnP. Must be into the larp aspects of it.

I don't think Volourns comments are stupid, though, but it's influenced by cheating in BG to make mages more super and in crpg it's not going to have thief shine as much. But when people think thief is useless even in IE they are just hopeless, and in all editions it's been one of the best characters to play, but only if done intelligently. It's all about finesse, not brute force.

Clerics on the other hand were always just crap except for cleric/assasins of old. Then 3.5 came along and holy moly The problem in 3.5 is everyone is way OP so it's hard to sort out who's more OP, but if you think that anyone except maybe bard is way underpowered then you are hopeless.

 

[Jaesun]

What do people think of Pathfinder then?

Pretty much everyone here loves Pathfinder.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

but most people seem to hate 4E, so maybe these problems weren't all that serious after all?

IMHO, the problem with 4E on this front was that they way it addressed the wizard problem was to spread alot of wizardesque powers around the other classes. I only played it a tiny bit, but all the classes felt very interchangeable in the way they played. There was different fluff for the powers, but it always boiled down to comparable variations on damage, buffs and healing.