Alright, I've spent too much time reading this thread to not post my opinion on it, so here I go.
After reading and analyzing both arguments (for there are two main ones that seem to exist here), I can say that I can empathize with both. Picking up Baldur's Gate so long ago, I still remember blowing up myself and commoners (how I dreaded that horrible sound when your reputation drops by 5 for killing a peasant) and I would reload and reload and reload once more. Sometimes it can be pretty frustrating. In reality, Baldur's Gate as a game can be very frustrating. I recently just stopped playing BG out of pure frustration because I ran into 3 random encounters at once (A Kelsey encounter, a Jaheira Harpers encounter, and a Vampire encounter) where I really had no way to beat the vampires with my current memorized spells and gear, and I succumbed to level drain and said, "Screw it, League of Legends is easier then this." And I left. However, like clockwork, I came back the next day, strategized a bit, succeeded, and moved on. That's the key here - I came back.
I think one concern that's been touched on, but perhaps not really investigated, is that Baldur's Gate, with it's isometric view, AD&D rule set, and design, can be difficult. Back in 1998, this was expected of games. We toughed it out, we learned to approximate our spell ranges and we consider ourselves better spell-snipers for it. I myself like that I had to learn by fire (heh) here. But I could have so easily not! Everyone who still enjoys BG stuck around, but think about the countless players who gave up on so much of what this game has to offer simply because of a technicality.
I think BGEE offers a unique ability for the developers to look at what bothered people, what could have potentially turned them away from the game, and to fix it. Now, with bugs and such, this is easy - no one wants to keep the bugs. But with design that there is really nothing wrong with, it's more difficult. Sure, there's nothing wrong, but it could be better for potential players (and disgruntled veterans) if an option was provided for an easier time.
I think, maybe, just possibly, the stance that "I had to learn it the hard way, I didn't suffer from it, there are still plenty of people here" is a bit favored by happenstance. Yes, we did learn it the hard way, because in 1998, it wasn't that big of a difference. But when there are so many other games that offer targeting (which offers a degree of tactics by itself), I think BG could be enhanced in providing it as an option, at least from a business standpoint.
All I'm saying is that since Baldur's Gate is a RTwP game, the analog and the pause function makes the game not just easier but removes any challenge as far as friendly fire goes. Targetting spells is neither challenging nor fun. A easier way to do that would be removing friendly fire altogether.
I just wanted to comment on this. I agree that for the most part, having the analog and the pause function will essentially prevent the player from harming his own characters by accident. However, I disagree that this merits the removal of Friendly Fire, or even that that instance is the only part of FF that makes it fun. FF provides the player with a choice. Say there are 5 enemies, 3 archers and 2 fighters. There's also you, a mage, standing away from your 2 fighters, who are engaged in melee with the enemy fighters. Now, you can either fireball just the 3 archers, or you can fireball all 5 of the enemies but also hit your own men. It's a trade-off. Is it worth damaging your own men at the cost of damaging every enemy? With the elimination of FF, there is no choice, there is only one option of play. But with targeting and FF, you sometimes have the option to hit the fighters while narrowly avoiding your own men, sometimes you don't. Targetting is providing more options here. A huge point of FF is not to just punish mistakes, but provide a threat that forces the player to think.
Wow, serious debate going on here! Just to throw my opinion into the ring too: I don’t want it and wouldn’t use it, just a personal preference thing I guess, mainly due to the arguments previously stated that its much more worthwhile to try stuff and learn for yourself. As long as it was an optional feature I couldn’t care less but if its mandatorily put into the game I wouldn’t be too happy. Again just my opinion Peace guys
I don't have a problem with the area marker for some spells like "stinking cloud", but for "fireball" I do. The reason "fireball" is so powerful is because it is dangerous. It is far to powerful a spell to use with no risk.
I wouldn't mind the area marker for "fireball", if you had to make a roll to actually hit the area.
I wouldn't mind the area marker for "fireball", if you had to make a roll to actually hit the area.
I would much rather that the error was due to my own skill than a roll. It makes the game more due to skill than luck. Luck is good where it facilitates skill (e.g. you have to work around it if it goes wrong and plan your strategies accordingly), but there's not much point in removing skill to add luck.
From my browsing of these forums so far, this topic seems to be one of the most heated debates by far. As such, I felt inclined to offer my two cents, although I fear I fall a bit on the ambivalent side, understanding and empathizing with both sides of the argument.
I do think that the feature should absolutely be optional - for some newer players, I think the lack of AOE markers could be a total turn off. Now, I wouldn't usually opt for catering to casual gamers. I say this only because I want everyone in the world to buy a copy of BG:EE so that we can ALL experience the amazing game that BG3 would be. ^.^ As an optional feature, it would allow the veterans to play BG without AOE markers, but the newer players to feel more comfortable with their casting.
The reason I struggle with this choice, is because I do think that it adds a really interesting tactical challenge, estimating the AOE of dangerous spells such as fireball. At the same time, it's an unnecessary challenge in some respects. I'm not sure if I play BG wrong, but I pause the game after almost every spell is cast, giving me time to assess strategy and choose the optimal spells for the job. Marking the AOE of spells would enhance the tactical nature of an already extremely tactical game. At some points I think I spend more time with the game paused than with battles actually playing out. Personally, I love that aspect of it.
At any rate, that is my take on the issue. At this point, I'm not sure if I would rather play the game with or without AOE markers. It's really crazy that a feature that seems so minor can so greatly impact gameplay. Great thread!
@Spartacus I'm similarly on the fence about whether or not I would want to use it myself - I think it would be useful, but I wonder if I'd learn to depend on it too much. But I think that not including it as an option would be a mistake, for all of the reasons you mentioned.
I don't have any more insight on this topic, I don't really care if it's implemented or not, I wouldn't use it.
I just wanted to react to this :
I recently just stopped playing BG out of pure frustration because I ran into 3 random encounters at once (A Kelsey encounter, a Jaheira Harpers encounter, and a Vampire encounter) where I really had no way to beat the vampires with my current memorized spells and gear, and I succumbed to level drain and said, "Screw it, League of Legends is easier then this." And I left. However, like clockwork, I came back the next day, strategized a bit, succeeded, and moved on. That's the key here - I came back.
This is what I love about BG games, ragequit on a really tough fight and come back when you've cooled off with better strategy and succeed. It's a great feeling With mod added tactical encounters it actually happens every other day lol
Red circle for any aoe that will harm your own people (with any friendlies (blue and green) getting their circle filled in or pulsing or something), green for those that will only harm enemies, yellow for those that will hit foes and neutral stuff? Forcing people to decode what the spell discriptions say it so last century ^^* Would be nice with an option to turn all the 3d6 to 3 to 18 damage... We do speak english and not DnD right? Its a basic change and being able to remember exactly how big a fireball is when you have variable zoom levels is lunacy! Or so I think atleast ^^*
Making a feature optional doesn't necessarily make both its proponents and opponents happy. With any optional feature, you have to consider that: - Most people don't extensively tweak options before playing a game they don't know, therefore the defaults are what most people will use at least on their first playthrough. - Most people don't replay a game they've played and actually rarely finish even their first playthrough. Therefore they won't ever know what the options are. - With the previous points in mind, this means that a default-on optional feature is effectively the one and only gameplay experience for most people, and a default-off optional feature goes largely unknown. In other words, for most players, optional doesn't equate to a real choice. - Too many options that significantly alter gameplay make the game feel incoherent. The player is left with the impression that he's not playing it the way it was designed. - Players are unlikely to disable features that give them valuable tactical information.
With all that said, let's say the feature is optional: if it's off by default, then it only provides value for the 10% of users who really want to try everything the game has to offer; those are unlikely to turn it off once they've discovered it, but they will benefit the least from the feature since their enthusiasm for the game implies a superior level of competence already.
If it's on by default, then almost everyone will use it and it will greatly affect the experience for novice players; only players both "hardcore" and "veterans" would revert to the old experience for the sake of challenge and/or realism.
All considered, if the feature makes it into the game, it seems that it should be on by default: the ones it would most benefit are new players, and those would be unlikely to use it if it was off by default.
That said, here's my take on the pros and cons. The benefits are quite obvious: - Seeing areas of effect gives a great amount of information about spells. It's difficult to understand what BG's numerous spells do; the only tools the game gives are lengthy and somewhat obscure descriptions, and trial-and-error (save/reload). This feature would somewhat alleviate the problem. - Re-vitalize a number of currently almost useless spells. Lightning and all the cone-shaped spells (prismatic spray, cone of cold), for instance, have very limited use because they are so difficult to aim correctly. - In general, strong UI feedback makes the player feel in control, whereas in-the-dark experimentation ending in disaster tend to make players shelf the game and go play LoL.
There are also some drawbacks I can see: - Possibly overpower very effective AoE spells like Fireball and Skull Trap. It's currently very risky to try to hit enemies in contact with your melee fighters with these spells; perfect aiming would make this trivial.
... and that's about it for the drawbacks... and even then, it's not like you have a lot of fireballs per day to cast in BG1, so the issue might really crop up in BG2. But then in BG2 you also have wide access to all kind of immunities that already make all kinds of abusive tactics possible. So, not a big deal either way.
There may be a compromise here which doesn't involve making it optional. Rather than a clearly defined area, have one which fades at the edges. Higher difficulty setting gives a more blurred effect. So on easy the area is well defined, difficult offers more room for error. For new players, this would simulate the intuition an experienced player has and still offer helpful visual feedback without poring over spell descriptions and getting the ruler out.
@CameronTofer@Coriander@TrentOster Implementation idea (perhaps mentioned above): In order not to break the immersion this "spell area" can be "shadowed" a little bit. You know, like some part of the meadow when there is cloud above. This should be barely visible and won't bother players, who used to do it old way.
@pacek Giving false information is almost as bad as giving no information,,, The UI should never "lie" to the user to provide "challange". Ya should fight the enemies, not the UI :P
I still dont really think it needs to be optional, if a new player cannot be bothered to play the learning curve and use trial and error during the game then why did they bother play baldurs gate in the first place? When I was young and played baldurs gate I enjoyed learning how to play the game and learning what things did. the last thing anyone needs is an option that maximises the use of the spell everytime, I personally love the feeling when I guesse the circumfrance of the firball blast kill the enemies and narrowly miss my party..
I'm really on the fence with this one. I've toasted my party countless times with a slightly misplaced Fireball. At the same time, I think of the mage casting the spell thinking, "yeah, about there. This works, I'm a hero, if I'm off a bit, well at least some of us survive". I also think BG is a pretty tough game to learn and while making it easier to pick up is a good concept I also believe there is a large market of people who are tired of games that hand-hold. We won't look at this until after ship.
I think its good not to have an affected area be known it makes you think more. I've spent a whole lotta time stuck in webs i think it helped my characters deep rotted fear of spiders
@TrentOster : could it be possible for a "Toggle Spell Area of Effect On/Off"? That would pretty much solve the issue for both power gamers and newcomers I bet.
@pacek Giving false information is almost as bad as giving no information,,, The UI should never "lie" to the user to provide "challange". Ya should fight the enemies, not the UI :P
How do you equal my suggestion to giving false information?? For the record though, I am in favour of original behaviour, ie no area marker whatsoever.
Some people forget this IS d&d, dices must roll... But the point is, why disrupt the imersion and UI of the game for a quite useless aoe display that you know by heart after casting 2/3 times? There should be no such precision that we need a drawing to hit enemies.
Obviously I hate the idea, but one minimalistic way to implement it would have it restricted by number of uses or by level.
The first X times you cast a spell, you get the marker. After that, no marker. Perhaps the difficulty slider or some other ini setting would change X (easy 50, normal 5, hard 0).
or
While at the level which you acquire the spell, the marker is in effect. Once you advance in level, no marker.
Think would be really nice and useful to have an indicator (as the circles under characters and monsters) of the area of effect our spell will have based on where we point to mouse to set the creature/place of target, expecially to avoid friendly fire of spells like firebal or cone of cold. Is that possible ?
From what I gathered, there's split interest in having the area marked. I personally don't see a need for it, but that's because I'm pretty well aware of where everything hits, through multiple years of playing BG.
Sorry, i didnt know it has already been discussed. I already finished all the original games of the saga (plus all the icewind dalke) without problems but after playing Temple of elemental Evil and the dragon Age serie i must admit i really appreciated that feature and during my last time on BG i really missind it (even if it was like the 10th time i was playing it) so well if it is possible to make it, why not
This feature would be useful if not just for the fact that if you play multiplayer and can't pause the game, playing as a caster would let you target where you want to hit and would avoid creating massive issues if you accidentally kill a friendly player because you didn't know whom you would hit.
Just for this reason alone I would like to see this feature optionally implemented.
Comments
After reading and analyzing both arguments (for there are two main ones that seem to exist here), I can say that I can empathize with both. Picking up Baldur's Gate so long ago, I still remember blowing up myself and commoners (how I dreaded that horrible sound when your reputation drops by 5 for killing a peasant) and I would reload and reload and reload once more. Sometimes it can be pretty frustrating. In reality, Baldur's Gate as a game can be very frustrating. I recently just stopped playing BG out of pure frustration because I ran into 3 random encounters at once (A Kelsey encounter, a Jaheira Harpers encounter, and a Vampire encounter) where I really had no way to beat the vampires with my current memorized spells and gear, and I succumbed to level drain and said, "Screw it, League of Legends is easier then this." And I left. However, like clockwork, I came back the next day, strategized a bit, succeeded, and moved on. That's the key here - I came back.
I think one concern that's been touched on, but perhaps not really investigated, is that Baldur's Gate, with it's isometric view, AD&D rule set, and design, can be difficult. Back in 1998, this was expected of games. We toughed it out, we learned to approximate our spell ranges and we consider ourselves better spell-snipers for it. I myself like that I had to learn by fire (heh) here. But I could have so easily not! Everyone who still enjoys BG stuck around, but think about the countless players who gave up on so much of what this game has to offer simply because of a technicality.
I think BGEE offers a unique ability for the developers to look at what bothered people, what could have potentially turned them away from the game, and to fix it. Now, with bugs and such, this is easy - no one wants to keep the bugs. But with design that there is really nothing wrong with, it's more difficult. Sure, there's nothing wrong, but it could be better for potential players (and disgruntled veterans) if an option was provided for an easier time.
I think, maybe, just possibly, the stance that "I had to learn it the hard way, I didn't suffer from it, there are still plenty of people here" is a bit favored by happenstance. Yes, we did learn it the hard way, because in 1998, it wasn't that big of a difference. But when there are so many other games that offer targeting (which offers a degree of tactics by itself), I think BG could be enhanced in providing it as an option, at least from a business standpoint. I just wanted to comment on this. I agree that for the most part, having the analog and the pause function will essentially prevent the player from harming his own characters by accident. However, I disagree that this merits the removal of Friendly Fire, or even that that instance is the only part of FF that makes it fun. FF provides the player with a choice. Say there are 5 enemies, 3 archers and 2 fighters. There's also you, a mage, standing away from your 2 fighters, who are engaged in melee with the enemy fighters. Now, you can either fireball just the 3 archers, or you can fireball all 5 of the enemies but also hit your own men. It's a trade-off. Is it worth damaging your own men at the cost of damaging every enemy? With the elimination of FF, there is no choice, there is only one option of play. But with targeting and FF, you sometimes have the option to hit the fighters while narrowly avoiding your own men, sometimes you don't. Targetting is providing more options here. A huge point of FF is not to just punish mistakes, but provide a threat that forces the player to think.
Just to throw my opinion into the ring too: I don’t want it and wouldn’t use it, just a personal preference thing I guess, mainly due to the arguments previously stated that its much more worthwhile to try stuff and learn for yourself.
As long as it was an optional feature I couldn’t care less but if its mandatorily put into the game I wouldn’t be too happy.
Again just my opinion
Peace guys
I wouldn't mind the area marker for "fireball", if you had to make a roll to actually hit the area.
I do think that the feature should absolutely be optional - for some newer players, I think the lack of AOE markers could be a total turn off. Now, I wouldn't usually opt for catering to casual gamers. I say this only because I want everyone in the world to buy a copy of BG:EE so that we can ALL experience the amazing game that BG3 would be. ^.^ As an optional feature, it would allow the veterans to play BG without AOE markers, but the newer players to feel more comfortable with their casting.
The reason I struggle with this choice, is because I do think that it adds a really interesting tactical challenge, estimating the AOE of dangerous spells such as fireball. At the same time, it's an unnecessary challenge in some respects. I'm not sure if I play BG wrong, but I pause the game after almost every spell is cast, giving me time to assess strategy and choose the optimal spells for the job. Marking the AOE of spells would enhance the tactical nature of an already extremely tactical game. At some points I think I spend more time with the game paused than with battles actually playing out. Personally, I love that aspect of it.
At any rate, that is my take on the issue. At this point, I'm not sure if I would rather play the game with or without AOE markers. It's really crazy that a feature that seems so minor can so greatly impact gameplay. Great thread!
I just wanted to react to this : This is what I love about BG games, ragequit on a really tough fight and come back when you've cooled off with better strategy and succeed. It's a great feeling
Its a basic change and being able to remember exactly how big a fireball is when you have variable zoom levels is lunacy! Or so I think atleast ^^*
Making a feature optional doesn't necessarily make both its proponents and opponents happy. With any optional feature, you have to consider that:
- Most people don't extensively tweak options before playing a game they don't know, therefore the defaults are what most people will use at least on their first playthrough.
- Most people don't replay a game they've played and actually rarely finish even their first playthrough. Therefore they won't ever know what the options are.
- With the previous points in mind, this means that a default-on optional feature is effectively the one and only gameplay experience for most people, and a default-off optional feature goes largely unknown. In other words, for most players, optional doesn't equate to a real choice.
- Too many options that significantly alter gameplay make the game feel incoherent. The player is left with the impression that he's not playing it the way it was designed.
- Players are unlikely to disable features that give them valuable tactical information.
With all that said, let's say the feature is optional: if it's off by default, then it only provides value for the 10% of users who really want to try everything the game has to offer; those are unlikely to turn it off once they've discovered it, but they will benefit the least from the feature since their enthusiasm for the game implies a superior level of competence already.
If it's on by default, then almost everyone will use it and it will greatly affect the experience for novice players; only players both "hardcore" and "veterans" would revert to the old experience for the sake of challenge and/or realism.
All considered, if the feature makes it into the game, it seems that it should be on by default: the ones it would most benefit are new players, and those would be unlikely to use it if it was off by default.
That said, here's my take on the pros and cons. The benefits are quite obvious:
- Seeing areas of effect gives a great amount of information about spells. It's difficult to understand what BG's numerous spells do; the only tools the game gives are lengthy and somewhat obscure descriptions, and trial-and-error (save/reload). This feature would somewhat alleviate the problem.
- Re-vitalize a number of currently almost useless spells. Lightning and all the cone-shaped spells (prismatic spray, cone of cold), for instance, have very limited use because they are so difficult to aim correctly.
- In general, strong UI feedback makes the player feel in control, whereas in-the-dark experimentation ending in disaster tend to make players shelf the game and go play LoL.
There are also some drawbacks I can see:
- Possibly overpower very effective AoE spells like Fireball and Skull Trap. It's currently very risky to try to hit enemies in contact with your melee fighters with these spells; perfect aiming would make this trivial.
... and that's about it for the drawbacks... and even then, it's not like you have a lot of fireballs per day to cast in BG1, so the issue might really crop up in BG2. But then in BG2 you also have wide access to all kind of immunities that already make all kinds of abusive tactics possible. So, not a big deal either way.
TL;DR Zeckul approves
Implementation idea (perhaps mentioned above):
In order not to break the immersion this "spell area" can be "shadowed" a little bit. You know, like some part of the meadow when there is cloud above. This should be barely visible and won't bother players, who used to do it old way.
But the point is, why disrupt the imersion and UI of the game for a quite useless aoe display that you know by heart after casting 2/3 times? There should be no such precision that we need a drawing to hit enemies.
The first X times you cast a spell, you get the marker. After that, no marker. Perhaps the difficulty slider or some other ini setting would change X (easy 50, normal 5, hard 0).
or
While at the level which you acquire the spell, the marker is in effect. Once you advance in level, no marker.
Is that possible ?
Thanx
From what I gathered, there's split interest in having the area marked. I personally don't see a need for it, but that's because I'm pretty well aware of where everything hits, through multiple years of playing BG.
I already finished all the original games of the saga (plus all the icewind dalke) without problems but after playing Temple of elemental Evil and the dragon Age serie i must admit i really appreciated that feature and during my last time on BG i really missind it (even if it was like the 10th time i was playing it) so well if it is possible to make it, why not
Just for this reason alone I would like to see this feature optionally implemented.