I did a little searching and I couldn't find any recent threads about this game here, and since my interest in it was rekindled from ChristofferC's posting of its title screen in the Pictures thread in GD I thought it might be worthwhile to start up another discussion on a game that many -- if not most of us here at the Codex -- would have really liked to have seen the light of day: Baldur's Gate 3.
I had actually never read the Wiki article about it until just a little while ago, probably desiring not to tear an old wound open (yes, I very much would have relished this title). There are quite a few facts about its development that I was thus previously quite unaware of, most further adding to my distinct displeasure that the whole thing got scrapped. I knew it was to be based on 3E, I knew about its setting and some of its storyline. The following were things that surprised me to learn, however:
I do vaguely remember the book in IDII, but I never made the connection until now. I think the whole concept of the hound representing guilt and that it could not be killed was solid enough, a bit contrived but interesting that it was derived from that previous game.
This is particularly disturbing to me, since ToEE is a game I consider to be at the pinnacle of enjoyment for its turn-based characteristics. Combining Black Isle's superior storytelling and writing with the advanced combat of 3E in a ToEE-like environment would have been enough for me to have ruined several pairs of underwear. More on this:
Again, just glorious potential there. I don't know how accurate these quotes are but just the thought of being able to fully customize your characters in 3D, eliminating BG's inflexibility of its on-screen portraits and the potential to have the amazingly efficient radial combat menus in Black Hound might have catapulted this game into RPG geeks' pantheon of awesomeness. Such a shame. Looking at some of the Van Buren stuff, however, leaves me with some skepticism as to how clean the whole thing would've been in the end. Fully 3D engines weren't quite all there yet back then.
Quite surprising and, if true, might've been a killer to the game's popularity. You know how derpers are about LEVEL CAP?!???!11 and all that. Also, no Prestige Classes. *gasp!* Still, a low-level campaign, focused more on story and tactical combat without giving in to powergamers? Heavan IMO.
Obviously doomed from the start but the possibilities were amazing. I really didn't know a trilogy was planned. Fits in well with the low level cap of III. Throne of Bhaal seems so much more cheesy thinking about what could have been with this series.
I know this subject has been tossed around quite a bit here, but I still don't think enough. I just can't state how strongly I resent not being able to have played what I think would have been Black Isle's finest achievement. All the financial reasons, Atari's failures, WotC's ineptitude -- it doesn't excuse the shame that should be felt for not having something like this reach fruition. I'm sure it's just the D&D nerd in me, but I'd trade a thousand Bethesda titles for just one more good, true Dungeons and Dragons CRPG. I really do mean that.
I had actually never read the Wiki article about it until just a little while ago, probably desiring not to tear an old wound open (yes, I very much would have relished this title). There are quite a few facts about its development that I was thus previously quite unaware of, most further adding to my distinct displeasure that the whole thing got scrapped. I knew it was to be based on 3E, I knew about its setting and some of its storyline. The following were things that surprised me to learn, however:
I do vaguely remember the book in IDII, but I never made the connection until now. I think the whole concept of the hound representing guilt and that it could not be killed was solid enough, a bit contrived but interesting that it was derived from that previous game.
This is particularly disturbing to me, since ToEE is a game I consider to be at the pinnacle of enjoyment for its turn-based characteristics. Combining Black Isle's superior storytelling and writing with the advanced combat of 3E in a ToEE-like environment would have been enough for me to have ruined several pairs of underwear. More on this:
Again, just glorious potential there. I don't know how accurate these quotes are but just the thought of being able to fully customize your characters in 3D, eliminating BG's inflexibility of its on-screen portraits and the potential to have the amazingly efficient radial combat menus in Black Hound might have catapulted this game into RPG geeks' pantheon of awesomeness. Such a shame. Looking at some of the Van Buren stuff, however, leaves me with some skepticism as to how clean the whole thing would've been in the end. Fully 3D engines weren't quite all there yet back then.
Quite surprising and, if true, might've been a killer to the game's popularity. You know how derpers are about LEVEL CAP?!???!11 and all that. Also, no Prestige Classes. *gasp!* Still, a low-level campaign, focused more on story and tactical combat without giving in to powergamers? Heavan IMO.
Obviously doomed from the start but the possibilities were amazing. I really didn't know a trilogy was planned. Fits in well with the low level cap of III. Throne of Bhaal seems so much more cheesy thinking about what could have been with this series.
I know this subject has been tossed around quite a bit here, but I still don't think enough. I just can't state how strongly I resent not being able to have played what I think would have been Black Isle's finest achievement. All the financial reasons, Atari's failures, WotC's ineptitude -- it doesn't excuse the shame that should be felt for not having something like this reach fruition. I'm sure it's just the D&D nerd in me, but I'd trade a thousand Bethesda titles for just one more good, true Dungeons and Dragons CRPG. I really do mean that.
is all i have to say about it.
