Baldur's Gate 3...confirmed!

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, it's only catch-22 if you assume I'm wanting Baldur's Gate 3 to be a thing and then never being satisfied with any outcome. I'm fine with a game being called 'Baldur's Gate: Interesting Subtitle', but 'Baldur's Gate 3' is implying a lot, which I don't think it can or should try to match. It should be its own thing.

I agree with this. "Baldur's Gate: The Illithid Scourge" doesn't bother me nearly as much as "Baldur's Gate 3: No, this has nothing to do with the Bhaalspawn".

[Constructman]

Don't mind Final Fantasy, Tales, and Dragon Quest in the corner with their numbers. Don't mind them at all.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Zousha's approach to games is apparently some kind of compulsion, nothing to do with fun.

I'm a perfectionist. And I have a Bachelor's Degree of English (with an emphasis in Literature) that I need to use SOMEHOW.

[tyckspoon]

Tales ..

As in the Tales Of ... games? Those don't have numbers, they just make up new maybe-relevant-but-not-usually words to name each game.

[Avaris]

Don't mind Final Fantasy, Tales, and Dragon Quest in the corner with their numbers. Don't mind them at all.

Fun fact! Part of the reason I’ve never played Final Fantasy is because it feels really odd to start with 7 or whatever. Psychologically it makes me feel I’m missing out. I know this is wrong, but it has a psychological effect, as my formative experience with numbered games was of them being direct sequels. This feeling won’t apply to everyone, but in my case it makes me think that game series where there are numbered games but you’re not expected to play them in order are stupid.

[Erloas]

Well at least your not getting the Fallout 3 version of Baldur's Gate, where it is a effectively a different genre, doesn't stay in the same area, doesn't use any carry over characters. It uses the mascot and a some general themes... and that's about it. Ironically Fallout: New Vegas didn't use a number but was at least more in line with the story and setting told in 1&2.

[Winthur]

doesn't use any carry over characters.

Fallout 3 had Harold.

[Kyutaru]

Fun fact! Part of the reason I’ve never played Final Fantasy is because it feels really odd to start with 7 or whatever. Psychologically it makes me feel I’m missing out. I know this is wrong, but it has a psychological effect, as my formative experience with numbered games was of them being direct sequels. This feeling won’t apply to everyone, but in my case it makes me think that game series where there are numbered games but you’re not expected to play them in order are stupid.

It's not even about playing them in order or not. Final Fantasy games have nothing to do with each other. They aren't even based in the same world usually. They're meant to be individual storylines that have nothing in common, not even the core mechanics remain consistent from game to game. The overall atmosphere and style may remain similar but ultimately you can pick up any of them and play them in any order having never touched the rest.

[Kish]

I'm a perfectionist. And I have a Bachelor's Degree of English (with an emphasis in Literature) that I need to use SOMEHOW.

Yeah...no. That's not it. I'm a perfectionist. I have a Bachelor's degree in English focused on literature. And when I play games, I actually play them, not wait for the sequel to be out so I can figure out what kind of narrative I'm going to force. I would venture that on this forum, there are numerous people who can claim one or both of those, and can also claim autism which you've given as the reason for your attitude toward games before, and yet you're the only one I've ever seen show this kind of disconnect from the concept that games are for fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's not even about playing them in order or not. Final Fantasy games have nothing to do with each other. They aren't even based in the same world usually. They're meant to be individual storylines that have nothing in common, not even the core mechanics remain consistent from game to game. The overall atmosphere and style may remain similar but ultimately you can pick up any of them and play them in any order having never touched the rest.

You could say that Final Fantasy 1-15 are about as connected as D&D 1-5. In fact, even less so. D&D often has lore, deities, even NPCs that are consistent from edition to edition. Final Fantasy often recycles Summons/Aeons/Eidolons/Espers/Gods, but there's no common plot or overarching storyline past Final Fantasy 5 (Final Fantasies 1-5 all revolved around elemental crystals, until 5 broke them).

Do you feel bad for not playing the D&D editions in order?

[Cikomyr]

Don't mind Final Fantasy, Tales, and Dragon Quest in the corner with their numbers. Don't mind them at all.

I know it's sarcasm, but what is the narrative thread that unite these series? What's the Dragon Quest character, storyline that continues from game to game the way Baldur's Gate 2 continued from Baldur's Gate 1?

'cause I know for a fact that there's no relation between FF1 and FF2, or FF3, beside the name and combat system.

Not even the settings are the same.

Well at least your not getting the Fallout 3 version of Baldur's Gate, where it is a effectively a different genre, doesn't stay in the same area, doesn't use any carry over characters. It uses the mascot and a some general themes... and that's about it. Ironically Fallout: New Vegas didn't use a number but was at least more in line with the story and setting told in 1&2.

But Fallout and Fallout 2, at least, were not a continuous tale. They had certain related world elements, and a few key characters that crossed over, but that's it. It's not a continuing saga.

Damn fine games, nevertheless. So it's why I wasn't mad at Fallout 3 for being so different in term of what's in the game world. I dislike Fallout 3 for entirely different reason.

Baldur's Gate was a narrative experience, and the narrative crossed between BG1 and BG2. Having not narrative crossing into BG3 makes me think it's just a name-cash grab

[Kish]

Bioware could have established a pattern of "games with the Baldur's Gate name and a number are set in the Baldur's Gate region, but are not otherwise sequels, with different protagonists and unrelated events." That's what the previously mentioned, well, I'm not sure if to call them examples or "clubs to use to bat away objections" did: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest. (D&D's a game system, not a computer game with a plot, so the only reason I can see to bring it up is...see two paragraphs from this one.)

They didn't. They established the opposite: that Baldur's Gate 2 meant "this game takes place nowhere near Baldur's Gate, but has the same protagonist as Baldur's Gate 1 and continues the story."

I do not in the least understand what point people think they're making by saying, in essence: Look at these other numbered things! You shouldn't object to anything anyone chooses to number Baldur's Gate 3!

Edited to answer Cikomyr's question: The Dragon Quest games use similar mechanics. That's about it. No two have the same protagonist, and they're set centuries apart when they even have a nod to "takes place in the same world."

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Yeah...no. That's not it. I'm a perfectionist. I have a Bachelor's degree in English focused on literature. And when I play games, I actually play them, not wait for the sequel to be out so I can figure out what kind of narrative I'm going to force. I would venture that on this forum, there are numerous people who can claim one or both of those, and can also claim autism which you've given as the reason for your attitude toward games before, and yet you're the only one I've ever seen show this kind of disconnect from the concept that games are for fun.

What do you want me to say? That I don't know how to have fun or something? That I'm using my diagnosis to rationalize my bad behavior? That I treat games like school assignments I'm being graded on and never mentally moved on from graduating?

[JadedDM]

Before it got cancelled, wasn't Black Isle also going to make a BG3, that had nothing to do with the previous games, and had an entirely new cast? Black Hound, or something like that, I think it was going to be called?

[Rodin]

Before it got cancelled, wasn't Black Isle also going to make a BG3, that had nothing to do with the previous games, and had an entirely new cast? Black Hound, or something like that, I think it was going to be called?

Apparently.

Why am I not surprised the Wikipedia page for a game that doesn't exist is larger than Wikipedia pages on many things that DO exist?

[Narkis]

Before it got cancelled, wasn't Black Isle also going to make a BG3, that had nothing to do with the previous games, and had an entirely new cast? Black Hound, or something like that, I think it was going to be called?

The game was never made. And if it were, I'm sure there'd be very similar discussions about it being a true sequel or not.

The Baldur's Gate games are cherished memories from my childhood. The first RPGs I ever played, the reason I got into DnD, the Forgotten Realms, these forums and met most of my real life friends. Having that "3" in the title screams of a cynical nostalgia-based cashgrab. Especially since they apparently intend to disregard what actually happened in the first games. "Baldur's Gate: Insert Subtitle Here" would have been far more honest and indicative of respect for the originals, without harming the name recognition at all. As has been said already, I'm not at all hopeful about this game to be honest.

And kinda off-topic, but Archpaladin Zousha never let anyone tell you how to enjoy your games. There is no right way to play anything, other than whatever way works for you. Anyone who argues otherwise is both conceited and wrong.

[Anteros]

This whole thread is kinda like arguing that since the first 3 Star Wars movies were about Luke, then all future Star Wars media must also be about Luke.

Franchises grow and change and sometimes new stories are told. That's life.

[Narkis]

This whole thread is kinda like arguing that since the first 3 Star Wars movies were about Luke, then all future Star Wars media must also be about Luke.

Franchises grow and change and sometimes new stories are told. That's life.

That's a very disingenuous comparison. The prequels were, by definition, not billed as a sequel to the originals. Rogue One and Solo were honestly advertised as side stories. The sequels had the old characters in them, largely continued the same story, and they still caught a lot of flak for having a new protagonist and rendering the successes of the old protagonists moot, and TLJ backlash was in part fuelled by them mishandling Luke's character. It is by no means a settled issue that they were right to make SW 7, 8 and 9 as they did.

A more apt comparison would be Harry Potter. No one had an issue with Fantastic Beasts not having him as a protagonist. But people would be up in arms if they announced a Harry Potter 8 set 100 years into the future, with most of the original characters dead, a new villain, a new protagonist and no involvement from Rowling.

[Winthur]

What do you want me to say? That I don't know how to have fun or something? That I'm using my diagnosis to rationalize my bad behavior? That I treat games like school assignments I'm being graded on and never mentally moved on from graduating?

I think the intent was an honest (if laid on thick, in a blunt manner) attempt to tell you that the books are bad and that even if they weren't, they shouldn't restrict your own creativity in a game that's acclaimed for letting you enjoy a variety of different playstyles and combinations. From one English language academic to another (although I'm a translation major, not a literature major), the games aren't some linearly built literary snorefest, they give you options for a reason. The paratext inherent in giving the player their own choice should trump literature written from only one perspective that further discolors the stuff that's actually in the game - last I checked, my copy of Baldur's Gate doesn't involve someone's blatant cuckoldry fetish, vampire sex scenes, softcore lesbian porn or character assassination.

I echo Narkis's statement here - you shouldn't let anyone tell you how to enjoy your games, or media in general. This includes Kish, but also Philip Athans, Drew Karpyshyn, Wizards of the Coast or President Barack Obama. Even the "official" story appointed by the books and new tabletop material is riddled with plotholes or at least retcons, the least of which is the matter of the duel between Abdel Adrian and Viekang, or the nature of the Bhaalspawn taint, not to mention that the book!Abdel is far from the reasonable authority figure that the Grand Duke of the tabletop campaign appears to be.

This is why I earlier mentioned the possibility that Abdel Adrian himself might be a soft retcon at this point, and that he is not the canon Bhaalspawn.

[Erloas]

Not really, you can find a lot of examples over different mediums that use sequels in a huge variety of ways and none of them are more or less valid than others. Claiming "it has to be a strict continuation of the previous story" is ignoring many more examples than it is supported by.

The "no input from the original creators" is also explicitly false since WotC have very clearly got behind this and the name of the game and what they're doing with the story and they're responsible for the story and setting and they've given them the go ahead. It is a setting and continuation that WotC themselves have done parts for this and the story between them. We can't even claim "the previous story has nothing to do with this game" because we don't know what they're doing. Just because they aren't importing old saves doesn't mean they're not tying anything together. 100 years into the future is a while, but considering the setting quite a few races will individuals that have lived through both events.

[JadedDM]

The Baldur's Gate games are cherished memories from my childhood. The first RPGs I ever played, the reason I got into DnD, the Forgotten Realms, these forums and met most of my real life friends. Having that "3" in the title screams of a cynical nostalgia-based cashgrab. Especially since they apparently intend to disregard what actually happened in the first games. "Baldur's Gate: Insert Subtitle Here" would have been far more honest and indicative of respect for the originals, without harming the name recognition at all. As has been said already, I'm not at all hopeful about this game to be honest.

I can't say I understand that at all. What difference does it make what the actual title of the game is? How does calling it Baldur's Gate 3 have any impact on your enjoyment of the older games?

[Morty]

I can't say I understand that at all. What difference does it make what the actual title of the game is? How does calling it Baldur's Gate 3 have any impact on your enjoyment of the older games?

Yeah, I don't get it either. Obviously, naming it Baldur's Gate III is a transparent attempt at building up hype. And it's working. But it's ultimately just a name.

[Inarius]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Obviously, naming it Baldur's Gate III is a transparent attempt at building up hype. And it's working. But it's ultimately just a name.

Pretty much the same for me. It's just meant to be a hype thing and to be honest we really know nothing about the game or the lead in material thats going to set the game up. Seems a bit early to be up in arms over a name. It probably would of been smarter to call it Baldurs Gate: Tentacle Edition or some other subtitle, but they went with 3 and naming conventions really aren't universal anyway so /shrug

[Avaris]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Obviously, naming it Baldur's Gate III is a transparent attempt at building up hype. And it's working. But it's ultimately just a name.

For me, being a transparent attempt at building up hype is precisely the problem. The Bhaalspawn saga has a formative role in the minds of many people growing up in the late nineties/early noughties, and this reads as a cynical and unnecessary attempt to build on that. It makes me think less of the people involved when the touchstones they seem go have are generic D&D things rather than things specific to Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. They clearly don’t want to carry on that specific story, which is the right decision, and calling it Baldur’s Gate 3 draws unnecessary attention to that fact, when they could have claimed the legacy and still been their own thing if they’d just dropped the 3.

It’s not at all important in the grand scheme of things. But it hits on a very personal and formative thing for some of us in a way it can’t live up to. I want to be able to judge it on its own merits, but I will always be thinking of it as a sequel when I shouldn’t be. Just calling it ‘Baldur’s Gate’ would have achieved much of the same resonance without this bad feeling for some of us.

[noob]

For me, being a transparent attempt at building up hype is precisely the problem. The Bhaalspawn saga has a formative role in the minds of many people growing up in the late nineties/early noughties, and this reads as a cynical and unnecessary attempt to build on that. It makes me think less of the people involved when the touchstones they seem go have are generic D&D things rather than things specific to Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. They clearly don’t want to carry on that specific story, which is the right decision, and calling it Baldur’s Gate 3 draws unnecessary attention to that fact, when they could have claimed the legacy and still been their own thing if they’d just dropped the 3.

It’s not at all important in the grand scheme of things. But it hits on a very personal and formative thing for some of us in a way it can’t live up to. I want to be able to judge it on its own merits, but I will always be thinking of it as a sequel when I shouldn’t be. Just calling it ‘Baldur’s Gate’ would have achieved much of the same resonance without this bad feeling for some of us.

Nope: it is wrong to name a game with the exact same name as the first opus because afterwards people have to think constantly to specify which one they are talking about and then they resort to stuff like time of creation or saying "the old one" or "the new one" and it adds a lot of complexity.
It is fairly annoying that now when I talk about doom I have to specify "the first one" or Doom (2016) depending on which one I am talking about.(while before I just had to write doom or doom 2 or doom 3)

[Kish]

What do you want me to say? That I don't know how to have fun or something? That I'm using my diagnosis to rationalize my bad behavior? That I treat games like school assignments I'm being graded on and never mentally moved on from graduating?

I didn't ask you to say anything. I didn't even initially respond to you.

[LibraryOgre]

This whole thread is kinda like arguing that since the first 3 Star Wars movies were about Luke, then all future Star Wars media must also be about Luke.

Franchises grow and change and sometimes new stories are told. That's life.

I disagree entirely. The first three movies were about a story. The prequel trilogy was the prequel to that trilogy. The sequel trilogy is a sequel to that story. Rogue One and Solo? They're also prequels to the story.

Luke was A main character, but the story was about the struggle against the Empire, of which he was a part. Han and Leia are both part of the story. The sequel trilogy deals with them (and their son) extensively.

The Bhaalspawn Saga (Baldur's Gate 1 and 2) was about the Bhaalspawn. The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games were separate... somewhat akin to making a Star Wars movie about someone fighting a droid uprising on Coruscant... touching on the setting, without interacting with the rest of the story.

[Calemyr]

The naming thing is just messy. Every way they could have done it was going to cause troubles with expectations.

This is an active attempt to reclaim and revamp the Black Isle style of game, with the heavy focus on story and party. They're even making "Gather Your Party" their tagline specifically to invoke the importance of your team in their design.

Unfortunately, previous games complicate every angle.

BG2 followed the same character in a different city, making Baldur's Gate an artifact title that's never been tightly connected to the story (Baldur's Gate wasn't a major part of the story even when it was set there). This makes Baldur's Gate <Number> seem inextricably tied to the Bhaalspawn.

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was another story set in Baldur's Gate with a different cast. Unfortunately, it also uses a different gameplay style. This makes Baldur's Gate: <Snappy Subtitle> seem to be divorced in gameplay from main games.

As I've said, though, we don't know there's no connection to the Bhaalspawn. Descent into Avernus could easily involve them as well, after all, which would make all four previous installments tied to the Bhaalspawn saga. The idea of a Bhaalspawn Mind Flayer throwing the planes into chaos could certainly be an interesting tale.

[Morty]

Actually getting the Bhaalspawn involved in any real measure means they'd have to account for every class, race and possibly other choices as well. I don't think it's likely.

[Narkis]

Actually getting the Bhaalspawn involved in any real measure means they'd have to account for every class, race and possibly other choices as well. I don't think it's likely.

KOTOR 2 did it right 15 years ago with a smaller budget. Just have a few questions at the start about your Bhaalspawn and change a couple scenes or dialogues based on your answer.

As I've said, though, we don't know there's no connection to the Bhaalspawn. Descent into Avernus could easily involve them as well, after all, which would make all four previous installments tied to the Bhaalspawn saga. The idea of a Bhaalspawn Mind Flayer throwing the planes into chaos could certainly be an interesting tale.

I'll eat my words if it ends up being related, but nothing we know so far has given us any indication that it will.