Baldur's Gate 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2 all-but-confirmed by Atari!

[Dark Jezter]

The new issue of PC Gamer magazine (the one with the review of Doom 3 on their cover) has a blurb that indicates that their next issue will have a look at several upcoming Dungeons and Dragons themed games, including the previously announced D&D Online and D&D RTS titles plus the previously unannounced games Neverwinter Nights 2 and Baldur's Gate 3. When contacted by HomeLAN to comment on this news bit an rep from Atari (the current holder of the console-PC D&D game licence) said, "There may be some truth to that statement..."

Source: http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=24824

If this is true (which it probably is), all I can say is... YES! Baldur's Gate II and Neverwinter Nights are two games that I've really, really loved. If the upcoming sequels are anywhere close to as good as their predecessors, things are really looking good for the future of D&D-themed PC games.

 

[KenM]

I just hope its Bioware doing them. I also hope Atari does not force Bioware to edit out things at the last minute they way they did with Temple of Elemental Evil game.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I just hope its Bioware doing them. I also hope Atari does not force Bioware to edit out things at the last minute they way they did with Temple of Elemental Evil game.

The Temple of Elemental Evil was made by Troika, not Bioware.

EDIT: Never mind. I missread your post. Oh, and I agree: I really hope that Bioware are the guys who make the game, although they've got a pretty full plate at the moment with Dragon Age and Jade Empire.

 

[Terraism]

Hm. Odd how this does nothing for me. Not only have I nearly sworn off Atari, each of those... I didn't like Neverwinter Nights (though I understand the expansion campaigns were far more enjoyable,) and there's no reason for BG3. Not only would I miss the Inifinity engine (which they wouldn't use,) where would they go with it? They'd have to start fresh, 'cause they really can't go with 30+ level characters.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Hm. Odd how this does nothing for me. Not only have I nearly sworn off Atari, each of those... I didn't like Neverwinter Nights (though I understand the expansion campaigns were far more enjoyable,) and there's no reason for BG3. Not only would I miss the Inifinity engine (which they wouldn't use,) where would they go with it? They'd have to start fresh, 'cause they really can't go with 30+ level characters.

Before Interplay went under, they were working on Baldur's Gate 3. Not much was known about it, except that it focused on an entirely new storyline with new characters. Also, the game was supposedly set in the Dalelands rather than the Sword Coast like BG1 and BG2 were.

I can't say that I'll miss the Infinity engine, though. Although it was great for its time, it's very dated by today's standards. As long as BG3 combines a great story and memorable characters with addictive gamplay, it will be worthy of carrying the Baldur's Gate name.

And who knows? Maybe a few characters from BG1 and BG2 will make cameo apperances in BG3. I know that I wouldn't mind seeing Minsc and Boo again.

 

[Terraism]

Before Interplay went under, they were working on Baldur's Gate 3. Not much was known about it, except that it focused on an entirely new storyline with new characters. Also, the game was supposedly set in the Dalelands rather than the Sword Coast like BG1 and BG2 were.

While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate. They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all. I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series. That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.

I can't say that I'll miss the Infinity engine, though. Although it was great for its time, it's very dated by today's standards. As long as BG3 combines a great story and memorable characters with addictive gamplay, it will be worthy of carrying the Baldur's Gate name.

I've always loved the Infinity engine. While it could use some updates, I never had any problems with the faux 3D perspective they did - I certainly feel that Throne of Bhaal and, especially, Icewind Dale II looked far nicer than Neverwinter Night's (in 3D! [Rolls eyes]) did. Combat was better handled in that engine than most I've seen, though, especially for 3E, it'd probably be *better* done by something akin to ToEE's turn-based system.

And who knows? Maybe a few characters from BG1 and BG2 will make cameo apperances in BG3. I know that I wouldn't mind seeing Minsc and Boo again.

No arguments there.

 

[DaveMage]

While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate. They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all. I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series. That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.

They might have to keep the "Baldur's Gate" name, contractually - even though it doesn't make practical sense.

 

[Welverin]

While that'd be interesting, I'd rather they not call it Baldur's Gate. They didn't treat Icewind Dale (obviously) as BG 1.5 and 2.5, after all. I realize the Icewind Dale games had a different feel to them, but my point is that I don't see any real reason to keep a name that implies it's part of a series. That said, I'm well aware that I tend to be very draconian about naming things.

I'm in complete agreement here, if it's not related story wise then it shouldn't use the name, and since there's no where else to reasonablely go with the story it shouldn't be called BG3.

Throw in the fact Bioware may not develop it and I rather see it not happen. Tacking the name of a popular game on something will not get me excited.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I can assure those posters who are wondering, that Bioware is not involved in either NWN2 or BG3. I have discussed the matter with several Bio staffers who are firends of mine, and they have assured me that BioWare is not involved.

The rights to those games are Ataris, not BioWare's.

While I have been massively involved in the NWN community, my expectations for NWN2 are very, very guarded. I expect that most of the CC and mod building community that had made NWN so successful will abandon the game for BioWare's Dragon Age.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I can assure those posters who are wondering, that Bioware is not involved in either NWN2 or BG3. I have discussed the matter with several Bio staffers who are firends of mine, and they have assured me that BioWare is not involved.

The rights to those games are Ataris, not BioWare's.

While I have been massively involved in the NWN community, my expectations for NWN2 are very, very guarded. I expect that most of the CC and mod building community that had made NWN so successful will abandon the game for BioWare's Dragon Age.

Although this is disappointing news, I'm not going to assume the worst about the games simply because Bioware is not making them. I'll be keeping track of the progress of the two games, reading previews, and taking a look at other games made by the development houses involved.

As for the earilier points about how BG3 should have a different title because it won't continue the story of BG1 and BG2, sequels having little to no connection to the storylines of their predecessors is not an uncommon practice in the video game industry. Final Fantasy and Quake are just two franchises where the sequels have no storyline connection to the games that came before.