Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 remakes reportedly in development

Wizards of the Coast is returning to Baldur’s Gate. PC Gamer reports that Wizards of the Coast is developing remakes of Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, with Kevin Martens leading development. Martens was the co-lead designer of Baldur’s Gate 2 and most recently was assisting in the development of Exodus, Wizards’ upcoming AAA video game.

Baldur’s Gate 3 was a major success for Wizards of the Coast and a sequel game seems inevitable. However, Larian Studios opted to leave the franchise to pursue its own IP, and Wizards has yet to announce what studio, whether internal or external, would take over. A remake of the first two Baldur’s Gate games would likely be a stopgap of sorts to keep fans interested in the franchise while lining up Baldur’s Gate 4, although a lot of work would be needed to update the games for modern consoles and PCs. Remastered versions were already released for iOS and PC a decade ago.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As someone who still hasn't finished BG3 because they find the repeated dice-rolling skill checks and the turn-based combat so fricking irritating and slow... I know I would certainly never play a remake BG1 or 2 if it went turn-based-- considering I already know the story and all the characters of both games. The only reason for playing a turn-based remake would be for those people who enjoy the turn-based D&D combat to play a whole bunch of turn-based fights. But for me... to have to sit through all of those things just to experience a story I already have done many times over seems like pulling teeth.

 

[Gladius Legis]

no problem with reactions in RTwP if they code them right.


you have tactics, so you can "auto" your AoOs and with spells have casting times, you can program that if you have counterspell, game pauses so you can press the button, or even better, you count on your own reactions to counter that spell.

shield spell can simply be reworked that you gain +1 bonus to AC or +3 if you have free hand, lasts whole day.

That sounds like a game I would avoid playing at any cost.

 

[Fandabidozi]

I’ve gone back to BG 3 several times and making some headway this time. It feels very cluttered, movement is awkward and the character models are ugly.
BG I&II are still the GOAT.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I’ve gone back to BG 3 several times and making some headway this time. It feels very cluttered, movement is awkward and the character models are ugly.
BG I&II are still the GOAT.

I only made any progress in BG3 once I was able to download a WASD mod for movement. And in the interim during some of the updates the mod broke and I haven't gotten around to fixing it, thus I haven't made further progress in the game.

 

[Gradine]

BG3 actually plays pretty great on controller, if that's your cup of tea

 

[CF07]

Is there anything preventing the game from working in either TB or RTwP modes? Without falling into the trap of trivializing the software effort involved in implementing these, it does still stand to reason that this specific aspect of the game is a very small fraction of the total implementation effort. The graphics, physics, implementation of the rules and everything else represent the lion’s share of the work, and there is no reason for any of those to be tightly coupled with whether the pausing is controlled by the player or by the game’s own turn manager engine.

I'm pretty sure you can set up BG2 to be quasi-turn based by having it pause at the end of each round. It's not exactly the same thing but it's not too far off. I paused A LOT.

 

[Zaukrie]

There is insane amount of content....I would totally play this, if they change the story somehow and use the content. Please be turn based...

 

[CF07]

I almost always kept Khalid around. The only times I didn't was when I felt like trying out other companions so I'd ignore him and his sister. I never really felt like a high strength was necessary in the older editions, good to have, but not necessary.

I played in a game where I had a Paladin with Str 15 (or something like that) and there was a Fighter with 18 percentile of some sort. He was WAY better in combat. I was just rolling straight damage dice and he was doing effectively twice that due to his constant multiplier. The big thing it didn't have was huge to hit bonuses until Strength got high into the 18 percentile range.

 

[cbwjm]

I played in a game where I had a Paladin with Str 15 (or something like that) and there was a Fighter with 18 percentile of some sort. He was WAY better in combat. I was just rolling straight damage dice and he was doing effectively twice that due to his constant multiplier. The big thing it didn't have was huge to hit bonuses until Strength got high into the 18 percentile range.

Well yeah, you get to the extreme strength scores and there is a definite gap in damage output, but I've never really felt like it was necessary to have those bonuses to succeed in the TSR editions. Unlike 3e where ability modifier has much more impact on success (I believe it is baked into the maths) you can easily get by without an average strength score in 2e.

 

[Questianor]

The went full turn-based for their WH40K game. The Owlcat Pathfinder games generally are a lot better in turn based mode. They faithfully implemented a bunch of class abilities that aren't really usable in RTWP.

I agree, I played through them in turn-based, despite my criticisms, and I enjoyed it. D&D/Pathfinder systems aren't really designed for RtwP and you don't get the most out of them playing that way. I just think CRPGs are best when they are firmly designed for one or the other. Owlcat's WH40K was excellent, even better than the Pathfinder games IMO.