A Baldur's Gate HBO series is in the works, will be set directly after Baldur's Gate 3 with new and returning characters
-
minsc has been in a lot of games though yeah? I think he was in the neverwinter mmo.
Not sure, the only game I played before BG3 was Dark Alliance 2 on PS2 around 20 years ago. Well that and homebrew 3.5e/5e tabletop, but that obviously was unrelated story-wise.
-
Not sure, the only game I played before BG3 was Dark Alliance 2 on PS2 around 20 years ago. Well that and homebrew 3.5e/5e tabletop, but that obviously was unrelated story-wise.
Other than Jaheira, almost all of the connective tissue is found in Act 3, but that makes sense, because it takes place in the titular city. There are at least two characters in Act 3 that are not in your party that return from previous games.
::: spoiler spoiler
One is in the Shar temple, and one is in the Bhaal temple.
::: -
Can we just not do this?
One, not every thing needs to be a whole franchise universe.
Two, the game had a lot of decisions players could make. Collapsing that into a single canon is going to be unsatisfying. It was annoying enough that bg3 made some big decisions about choices from bg2.
Related, if they ever make another game in the franchise this show will probably be canon, so it's not entirely ignorable.
Three, it's not even that interesting a setting. It's pretty Standard Fantasy.
We've had a pretty good hit rate with video game adaptations lately. Fallout and Arcane are both among my favorite TV shows. I think we finally got far enough along that show runners are gamers themselves and aware of what makes these things good and what needs to change to be a good show.
-
We don't get many high budget fantasy shows. I'm all for it. Larian is already moving away from bg anyways, I think wizards of the coast upped their licensing price by quite a bit.
That was an annoying thing, every Larian game that was released in EA had an EA price. BG3 didn't, it was full price from the start. And a highly inflated price than what Larian titles had been going for once released.
-
Yeah but they'll mess with the canon and then we'll all have to deal with it.
-
Can we just not do this?
One, not every thing needs to be a whole franchise universe.
Two, the game had a lot of decisions players could make. Collapsing that into a single canon is going to be unsatisfying. It was annoying enough that bg3 made some big decisions about choices from bg2.
Related, if they ever make another game in the franchise this show will probably be canon, so it's not entirely ignorable.
Three, it's not even that interesting a setting. It's pretty Standard Fantasy.
One, not every thing needs to be a whole franchise universe.
Bruh, DnD already is one.
-
Yeah, not sure who was in which games, but Minsc and Jaheira were grouped with one of the protagonists, and at least one of the games had another Bhal spawn.
Minsc and Jaheira were in both BG1&2, the big bad of BG1 was a Bhaal spawn as was one of the protagonist's friends. There's more characters from the older games, such as
::: spoiler Spoiler
Shadowheart's mistress/boss/whatever
::: -
Does it make sense to do this for something that is already part of a larger franchise (d&d)? Diablo would be a better candidate for a linear story I think.
-
interesting. I had not played 2 and 3 seemed like such a contained story I did not think there was any crossover.
Spoiler for Shadowheart's story
::: spoiler spoiler
Viconia is a recruitable party member in bg1 and 2. You can even make her not evil at the end. I was bummed that they decided that she just stays evil.
:::And for the main plot in act 3, with a certain bhaalspawn.
::: spoiler spoiler
You can also redeem sarevok, but they just decided that he's evil.
:::Annoying, but I get why they didn't do like a save import from an ancient game.
-
We've had a pretty good hit rate with video game adaptations lately. Fallout and Arcane are both among my favorite TV shows. I think we finally got far enough along that show runners are gamers themselves and aware of what makes these things good and what needs to change to be a good show.
I kind of refuse to watch Fallout. Partly because I read they fucked up the NCR. But also Amazon sucks , and Bethesda is kind of creatively bankrupt.
-
Saw a video about comedies from the early 2000's and some of the old heads were talking about how they didn't need IP's cuz the actors and the situation was all they needed. Paul Rudd has to do community service watching a kid. Jason Segal got dumped and goes on vacation to try and forget about his ex. Steve Carell is a virgin at 40, etc etc. It's crazy that every studio now seems to NEED an IP or else they can't make a movie.
-
I kind of refuse to watch Fallout. Partly because I read they fucked up the NCR. But also Amazon sucks , and Bethesda is kind of creatively bankrupt.
To each their own, but I thought they completely nailed the tone, respectfully incorporated the established fiction, and even wrote some great new characters.
-
To each their own, but I thought they completely nailed the tone, respectfully incorporated the established fiction, and even wrote some great new characters.
What made new Vegas interesting was that it's not just another kitschy wasteland romp. It's post-post-apocalypse, and it asks who rebuilds after.
My limited understanding is the TV show nuked the NCR so they could do more wasteland theme park, and not continue that train of thought. But also didn't just set it somewhere else.
But admittedly I haven't actually watched it.
But also, again, trying to make a TV show intersect with a video game with multiple endings is a foolish idea. You won't make everyone happy, and it's an entirely avoidable problem. They could've just set the show in a different part of the world that hasn't had a game.
-
What made new Vegas interesting was that it's not just another kitschy wasteland romp. It's post-post-apocalypse, and it asks who rebuilds after.
My limited understanding is the TV show nuked the NCR so they could do more wasteland theme park, and not continue that train of thought. But also didn't just set it somewhere else.
But admittedly I haven't actually watched it.
But also, again, trying to make a TV show intersect with a video game with multiple endings is a foolish idea. You won't make everyone happy, and it's an entirely avoidable problem. They could've just set the show in a different part of the world that hasn't had a game.
Video games sequeling other choice-based video games run into the same issue, and you quickly forget once you're in it that maybe you treated Shady Sands differently than the canonized decision about it. As it takes place further in the future than any of the games, it acknowledges what happened in their past, creates new events that happened since we last saw them, and also steers them in new directions, because people change, and the old leaders would have long since been replaced by new ones. That's all just part of continuing a story. The only way to avoid having to pick a canon is to never continue it ever, but I'm happy we got this show at all.
-
Video games sequeling other choice-based video games run into the same issue, and you quickly forget once you're in it that maybe you treated Shady Sands differently than the canonized decision about it. As it takes place further in the future than any of the games, it acknowledges what happened in their past, creates new events that happened since we last saw them, and also steers them in new directions, because people change, and the old leaders would have long since been replaced by new ones. That's all just part of continuing a story. The only way to avoid having to pick a canon is to never continue it ever, but I'm happy we got this show at all.
Bg1 and 2, Dragon age, and mass effect famously had save imports, so "the only way" doesn't check out.
The dark souls games are so far removed in time that the previous game is legend, so that's an option.
For the tv show they also could have, as I said, just set it somewhere and somewhen else. They can have rumors about what's happening in Vegas, but it's 20 years ago and you're in Chicago, so who knows what's true.
So, yeah, they could've done something else and still made a TV show.
-
Bg1 and 2, Dragon age, and mass effect famously had save imports, so "the only way" doesn't check out.
The dark souls games are so far removed in time that the previous game is legend, so that's an option.
For the tv show they also could have, as I said, just set it somewhere and somewhen else. They can have rumors about what's happening in Vegas, but it's 20 years ago and you're in Chicago, so who knows what's true.
So, yeah, they could've done something else and still made a TV show.
BG2 only takes a few things from the previous game and throws out the rest. I haven't played Dragon Age, but Mass Effect and Telltale infamously had "the choice diamond" where they respect your choices up until it has to eventually lead somewhere, so they all end up funneling back into only a few options. These are just different ways to dress up the same problem. Fallout the TV show does exactly the same thing as Fallout 2 did to Fallout 1, which is the same as your Dark Souls example: it's set far enough in the future that you're unlikely to run into anything contradictory.
-
We don't get many high budget fantasy shows. I'm all for it. Larian is already moving away from bg anyways, I think wizards of the coast upped their licensing price by quite a bit.
Because HBO has a good track record for fantasy shows?
-
Because HBO has a good track record for fantasy shows?
HBO has a good track record period. I'm guessing you mean GoT but that series is a gem until the last season. Even in the last season, the zombie fight lasted a whole episode and a half and was peak tv. House of the dragon was pretty good as well.
-
I think it's a mistake to ride the coattails of Baldur's Gate 3.
Don't get me wrong, I think more Forgotten Realms stories could make for good TV. The Honor Among Thieves movie from a few years ago was fantastic, and there was supposed to be a live action TV series in the works after that.
But I just don't see why they'd give up on making one D&D TV series, only to start a brand new one with more baggage. Instead of telling an original story, they're tied down to a story continuity that is inevitably going to leave a lot of fans disappointed regardless of the direction they take.
-
Saw a video about comedies from the early 2000's and some of the old heads were talking about how they didn't need IP's cuz the actors and the situation was all they needed. Paul Rudd has to do community service watching a kid. Jason Segal got dumped and goes on vacation to try and forget about his ex. Steve Carell is a virgin at 40, etc etc. It's crazy that every studio now seems to NEED an IP or else they can't make a movie.
From afar, you get the impression that suits are in charge and if there isn't already some "proof of popularity" of some sort, it won't get greenlit
