D&D General WotC: 'Of Course We're Going To Do' Baldur's Gate 4

“Baldur’s Gate is an incredible game. And of course, we're going to do a successor."
baldurs-gate-3-review-in-progress.jpeg


In an interview with The Game Business, Wizards of the Coast's president John Hight touched on the company's video games plans for Dungeons & Dragons.

Hight told interviewer Christopher Dring “Baldur’s Gate is an incredible game. And of course, we're going to do a successor."

Larian Studios, which made Baldur's Gate 3, has previously indicated that is not going to be involved in any potential sequels.

However, the previously announced game that game studio Giant Skull is currently working on is not Baldur's Gate 4. Hight says "This is not the successor to [Baldur's Gate 3]. We go to Stig and his team to tell an incredible story and bring D&D to a very broad audience. Ideally, the game will appeal to D&D players because it will help them realise their imagination. But it’s also going to hopefully appeal to people that love playing action games, that love the Jedi games, that love God of War games." Giant Skull's game will be a single-player action-adventure game.

Giant Skull's Stig Asmussen spoke a little about that--as yet untitled--game: "A lot of us have grown up on Dungeons & Dragons. And for me, with a new company, this is something that we’re good at. We're good at working with partners. We're good at capturing the spirit of those worlds. It wasn't something that we could just walk away from. It was actually a pretty easy [decision]... Dungeons & Dragons is the definition of a playground. When we had the meeting in Renton [Washington], my mind opened up to the possibilities of what we could do. There’s still a lot of things that we have to abide by. There’s the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons. There are the worlds, player agency and choice, building a party, actions have consequences… those types of things."

Giant Skull was founded by Stig Asmussen in 2023. Asmussen previously was the game director of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor and Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, as well as God of War 3.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well Microsoft demoed 3D virtual projection about 10 or 15 years ago using modified kinect cameras as projectors but I have no idea how it would be made interactable. They never took it any further as far as I know, so they probably could not think of a way either.
They've tried dozens of ways with projectors, AR headsets, VR headsets, VR/AR hand controllers, and so on. Those are fine for piloting a drone.

But when life and death are on the line, and you're planning or providing information, you need two things:

1) Correct information.

2) Awareness of your local situation.

VR totally blocks 2. It'll get soldiers killed unless they're being protected by others as drone pilots are (often far from the battlefield). AR messes with 2.

Neither AR nor VR makes 1 easier to get either, because they're fundamentally imprecise technology. We can all imagine futuristic stuff where AR might outline targets or w/e, but if you've got AR that's linked to tech that can perfectly outline targets and so on, guess what? You could put that on a drone. Or a robot. Why is the human on the battlefield again?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, because it is hard, but I can see the attraction. Modern soldiers lug around a lot of battery and screen weight.

Well Microsoft demoed 3D virtual projection about 10 or 15 years ago using modified kinect cameras as projectors but I have no idea how it would be made interactable. They never took it any further as far as I know, so they probably could not think of a way either.
I remember Phil what's his name commented on that specifically a while back: what Microsoft discovered ia that vanishing few people want or like VR at all, so it wasn't worthwhile as a continued investment. Like trying to build luxury resorts with a view of a burning trash heap.
 

They've tried dozens of ways with projectors, AR headsets, VR headsets, VR/AR hand controllers, and so on. Those are fine for piloting a drone.

But when life and death are on the line, and you're planning or providing information, you need two things:

1) Correct information.

2) Awareness of your local situation.

VR totally blocks 2. It'll get soldiers killed unless they're being protected by others as drone pilots are (often far from the battlefield). AR messes with 2.

Neither AR nor VR makes 1 easier to get either, because they're fundamentally imprecise technology. We can all imagine futuristic stuff where AR might outline targets or w/e, but if you've got AR that's linked to tech that can perfectly outline targets and so on, guess what? You could put that on a drone. Or a robot. Why is the human on the battlefield again?
I know all this, I am not the one spending 22 billion on it. Just speculating about that they might be aiming for.

As far as your last question, war is a thing of humans and their societies. If lives are not on the line, it is not war, it is a game.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top