Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

I'm (a little) disapointed... but all is not lost! lol



  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Leeho730. I think you miss-understand my comment. Personally, I don't have a problem with relaxed rules. However, when Overhaul games took on this project I am quite sure that it was with the explicit direction from Hasbro that the rules were not to be changed. Additionally, quite a significant portion of those rules were hard coded and 'Relaxing' them would be a significant undertaking. Probably much more significant than you imagine.

    And quite simply, the entire project was intended to be the maximum benefit for the minimum work. I don't see them rewriting the entire core of the program simply to accommodate such a small benefit. Not the least of which it would significantly impact balancing as well.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • LordsDarkKnight185LordsDarkKnight185 Member Posts: 615

    Postscript: for anyone wanting more enhancement than EE offers - like, say, 3d rendering or a new ruleset - I hear a NWN2 module is coming out this spring that imports the entire BG1 game into NWN2. I never played NWN2, but I might buy it just for that!

    I have tried the prologue demo, and bg1 does not make up for nwn2's atrocious camera system.

  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    edited January 2013

    You want the game to stay as close as possible to the original?


    I'm against changes like the ones proposed by the OP (marker for AOE spells, 3D grapichs, etc.), because they are imho the equivalent of a restoration that changes the original "Mona Lisa" in a curly blond.

    Or something like this


  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756

    Umm, then why not play the original?

    Who told you that I don't?

    I have both the original + tutu + mods and BGEE.

  • Excalibur_2102Excalibur_2102 Member Posts: 351
    @Erg whats funny is some people have actually compared BGEE to that painting :P

  • EdwinEdwin Member Posts: 480
    I purchased it to support the franchise.

    While OP has a few valid points (most notably multi-player support) I, personally, rationalized my purchase by crediting the originals for providing me with the best entertainment bargain I have ever had. Therefore, I had no problem with meaningfully contributing to the team that cast a resurrection on the whole thing.

    It also became apparent that several of the top modders, who are largely responsible for the huge added entertainment value I have enjoyed er these many years, are presumably getting paid for their contributions to this revival. At least I hope this is the case.

    Yes, it is true that you can download free mods that accomplish 90% of what BGEE has done with your old vanilla copies or GOG's, but for me that is precisely why I felt compelled to support the project and it appears to be paying off. The modding community has had a call to arms and I predict even more great content for BGEE in the future as well as the possibility of continued professional development of a game that has been near and dear to my heart for over a decade.

  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756

    @Erg whats funny is some people have actually compared BGEE to that painting :P


    Those people must be the opposite of the OP :-)

    I personally find both positions rather extreme.

    BGEE is far from perfect at the moment and for the time being I still prefer BGtutu+mods, but they both have their own merits. Besides, BGEE has the potential to become better with future patches and mods.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    Erg said:

    kartonio said:

    i dont think sticking stricktly to the original is a must.

    This is where I disagree with you the most. I like BG because is an old school game and I believe it should remain so. There is plenty of modern games that play themselves already.
    This is something I don't understand. You want the game to stay as close as possible to the original? Umm, then why not play the original? It's for sale, right now, and cheaper than EE. To sell at the same time 1) a game, and 2) a re-make of it that stays as close to it as possible, makes no sense from a business perspective or a player's perspective. To update and improve the remake, and thereby have two firmly different products on the market, makes more sense to me.
    This is the same logic that brought us Total Recall the remake. For me personally, I see absolutely no reason or value in that movie. Better special effects is just about all.

    There is value to be had. "Apparently" there are consumers that welcome the tablet version. And there is the inclusion of new companions and some additional content. Plus some bug fixes. I'd say that was enough to differentiate the product in the market place without materially changing the content.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285

    No, it's not about changing the rule, it's about relaxing some rules that were abitrarily restricted (possibly due to laziness of original Bioware developers). I mean, HP dice rolls for Barbarians, monk fist, AC and APR progression, class combinations are any more sacred than HP die rolls for other classes or Wizard Slayer MR progression.

    Beamdog/Overhaul have already altered some hardcoded aspect, such as XP cap previsouly controlled by XPCAP.2DA being redirected to STARTARE.2DA and STARTBP.2DA. What I'm proposing is to do the same thing for some hardcoded aspect to redirect to 2DA. It is essentiall same thing as Beamdog/Overhaul did in terms of managing XP cap.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Leeho730. I think again you have failed to understand what I was saying.

    "when Overhaul games took on this project I am quite sure that it was with the explicit direction from Hasbro that the rules were not to be changed. "

    That isn't to say that what was changed wasn't also covered.

    Either way, I suppose they will do what they will do.

  • Wikkid_SuhnWikkid_Suhn Member Posts: 136
    kartonio said:

    Aosaw: make it an option? ;)

    actual duration of spells (calculated from caster level) and exprimed in rounds for example could be written in another color in the spell description for accessibility. Like when i buff i quickly want to know which spell will last longer so i can cast it first... and i'm never sure if a round is 10s and you got 6 rounds/turn (1min) or i a round is 6s and you got 10 rounds a turn... it makes buff order a little tricky sometimes. (but thats just an example, same thing could be done with dmg)

    I think the issue is this game is just too hard for you. If you can't understand clearly written rules that are expressed in the D&D Player's Handbook, which are probably available online, it is not the developers' responsibility to hold your hand. And maybe if you knew how to structure a party correctly you wouldn't need a "buff order." I mean seriously, why are you playing this game? Go stack buffs on WoW and stop plaguing this forum with your unproductive whining.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285

    I believe you are still a bit confused about the "rules" and the "programmes" and about "contractual limitation".

    I would like to suggest you read this thread:


    Relaxing some of hardcoded rules into BIF is not "the addition of new content to the existing games".
    It is simply changing file structure, not altering core contents. Is re-routing HP dice roll from HPWAR.2DA to HPBARB.2DA core contents change? Nope.

    What "core contents" are explained below:

    "Beamdog / Overhaul also face contractual limitations regarding the addition of new content to the existing games. They can build new content as "expansions", but they cannot add to the core content in the main title. This limitation is due to the contracts for the original source content and limit the devs from adding new conversation for existing characters to the main game. Hence, adding banters, inerjections and romances to the original cast of characters is unfortunately not feasible. They will interact with new NPCs and react to new situations and areas, but that's about it."

    Anyway, you're right, beamdog/overhaul will do what they want to do. And instead of doing something truly different and innovating people still argue about whether BGT is better than BGEE or not... and that is a worrying sign to me.

  • DjimmyDjimmy Member Posts: 749
    kartonio said:

    dont you guys wish to see a (league of legends-like) shadow of the fireball/silence/... AOE around the mouse before lanching it? i mean i really thought they would work on this kind of enhancements...

    I agree on some of the points you made in your first post in this topic but I also don't agree on the other like

    "Did you even try to redesign interface? Menues? Spell lists? (could we have access to spell details when in combat interface plz? No, we still need to open spellbook to get informations...)"

    I would like to see more stories and quests etc... but that is something that will change the game too much and the contract Overhaul signed will be violated I guess.

    That all doesn't change the fact that your post was too aggressive and such an aggression is not needed here. Getting too personal is not advisable either(unless the topic requires it).

  • Aasimar069Aasimar069 Member Posts: 803
    @Aosaw :

    Thanks for the new patch !

    Do you have information of when the two "bugs" I have listed in my answer to your first comment will be fixed ? (no comply to orders bug & IA scripts) They are still here after patch 6.


  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @leeho730. Thanks for the link.

    After reading, I still don't see explicitly stated that Overhaul games has carte blanche to change the rules (loosening or otherwise. I did see one line that I thought was very appropriate.

    "-possible, but at risk of introducing bugs"

    Which is a very real possibility. I take that you would LIKE them to loosen up the rules set. And I do not speak for Overhaul, so I might be wrong. But, I suspect that the reasons that they did not (as I am sure more than just you have asked for that) include (a) balancing concerns, (b) the possibility of introducing more bugs, (c) the amount of time to create and test in relation to the relative costs involved in doing that and (d) Contractual reasons.

    The link you gave did not link to the actual contract that was signed. So you don't know for sure what the fine print said, nor even what the broad strokes were. Nor do I. But it seems to me that, if it is as easy as you indicate, there must be a driving reason why they don't do it. And the intent of the release appears to be to re-release the game largely "As is" but with a few new NPCs, some bug fixes and several new areas (plus the additional platform). "IF" they are contractually able to "loosen" the rules, they may still choose not to. But I suspect that (and this is only my suspicion) you should prepare yourself for disappointment.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I can't give timelines, but I can tell you that they're working actively to fix those (and other) bugs.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285

    It explains rather very well. Absolutely no change to the dialogue, character, plot. Therefore no banter between NPCs. Map area small changes allowed to introduce expansion pack features, albeit in a small amount (such as we could see in Nashkel area, Baldur's Gate Gate area, W of Nashkel, Beregost etc. Basically keeping the canon while allowing a small amount of diversion. However, Overhaul DID state that they won't stop players making changes i.e. modding.

    Interesting you mention "rule" because in BGEE rules are already largely modified from the original BG, such as introduction of kits, traps, major changes in several spells etc. Kinda ironic that somehow these look somewhat minor to you than, say, allowing modders access to some features such as ability to mod HP dice roll of Barbarian. Funny modders can already edit HP die rolls for warriors, rogue, mage and monk but somehow modifying HP dice roll for barbarians is a no-go area?

    What you seem to be confused is that you somehow equate allowing the modders to change some rules by relaxing some hard coded 2DA files to changing the rules themselves. Overhaul can simply release those 2DA files in completely unaltered, original BGEE files that modders can edit. Overhaul are not changing the rules themselves but are allowing modders to change the rules (and that's what mod is all about, and Overhaul are definitely supporting this, reflected in their linked statement above).

    I would recommend you to download GemRB (infinity engine emulator, look up on Google or visit and download the latest binaries) and browse those locked 2DA files yourselves. Only then you'll realise those 2DA features that were keeping modders from achieving something truly interesting that could have made the BGT vs. BGEE argument completely in favour of BGEE and invigorate the modding communities.

    About cost and time.... Fraction of time they took to introduce widescreen, zooming, re-design GUIs, Black pit etc. Or do you believe it took Overhaul so much effort to introduce separate experience cap systems for BGEE and BP via splitting the 2DA from XPCAP.2DA to STARTARE.2DA and STARTBP.2DA?

    Again, I recommend researching GemRB and see for yourself and broaden your knowledge.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @leeho730. LOL.

    Can't help that you fail to understand what I am saying. But it sounds like you are firm in your thought patterns. personally, I hope that they do open up and relax the rules. But me (or you) wanting something doesn't guarantee it will happen.

    enjoy the game.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285
    edited January 2013

    What can I say Overhaul might bring some interesting feature for upcoming patch/DLC. Dragon disciple sorcerer kit, monk kit, thief kit which allow hide in plain sight, dwarves defender fighter kit with d12 HP per level (same as barbarian)

    I feel some interesting modding possibilities are on the way.... Especially because with release of those kits I believe quite a good number of hard coded 2DAs may become accessible by modders, such as class restriction based on race, unique spell books for classes and possibly spontaneous casting like sorcerers, d12 HP dice roll like Barbarian, possibility to add monk/sorcerer kits....

    So not much of a "contractual limitation" for those parts, eh? ;-)

    Finally one may be able to say that BGEE definitely kicks BGT's arse...

    Post edited by leeho730 on
  • NecroblivionNecroblivion Member Posts: 210
    I was like the OP at first. But now that I see what each patch brings I know that they are doing a great job at making this game even greater. I want many things. But some of them they can't do and some they might do in the future.

Sign In or Register to comment.