The console BG dark alliance games while fun were an abomination compared to the beauty of the originals. The fact that they sell for so much is that:
1: They still run just as well on their platform as they did when first released. 2: Most people got rid of their copies so there are fewer in circulation thus raising price due to supply and demand. 3. Drizzt as a playable character.
These 3 are why it is selling for so much, but the biggest one would be #1 a lot of people cannot play the original BG due to how outdated the software is on their systems making bugs and playability huge factors.
@paulsifer42 you said let me quote "This concept that anything that goes on a console automatically sucks..." And i think that the PC elitists are only worried about a BG3 console release and not what you make out of it.
@NWN_babaYaga So it was directed at me, got it. What I'm trying to say is that the worry is unfounded. Being made for console doesn't make something automatically suck. As I said, I think BGIII should be made for PC first, but that there would be nothing wrong with porting it to consoles if possible. There is a prejudice that if the game is made, even if it is first made for the PC, and it hits a console, it's suddenly worthless, and that's ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you meant by "not what you make out of it." So I can't really speak to that.
And yep, here we go again... 'PC elitists'. The same old dumb argument. Look, there have been given many good reasons why BG 3 shouldn't be a console game. The interface just isn't made for it, limited memory on consoles, etc... Just accept it and move on. Believe me, BG 3 is better off on the PC.
@NWN_babaYaga Is your point that PC gamers simply don't care what I think? I mean, it's cool if they don't, I'm just having a hard time finding your point.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I like how you went from 'PC Elitists' to 'old dumb argument.' Just kind of funny. As to the rest, I haven't heard a good argument for why it can't be on console. Interface is fine, since you can pause gameplay and make decisions (I'd be cool with it). My Xbox has 250 Gigs of memory, how much should I need? I see no real reason why it shouldn't be on console so long as it's made for the PC first.
Well the thing is every single non fps release for both pc and consoles has shafted pc. By shafting I mean graphics are lower, controls are so simplified or butchered as to make a game a pain to play or extremely boring. Take halo wars for example fun game but boring and doesn't even come close tobthe fun of a PC rts like starcraft or warcraft or even the original command and conquers. Then you get other games like DA: O which includes a hybrid and falls short on the control scheme for both console and PC. DA2 on the other hand went pure console for its gameplay and the PC version and the entirety of the game suffered for it.
Well the thing is every single non fps release for both pc and consoles has shafted pc. By shafting I mean graphics are lower, controls are so simplified or butchered as to make a game a pain to play or extremely boring. Take halo wars for example fun game but boring and doesn't even come close tobthe fun of a PC rts like starcraft or warcraft or even the original command and conquers. Then you get other games like DA: O which includes a hybrid and falls short on the control scheme for both console and PC. DA2 on the other hand went pure console for its gameplay and the PC version and the entirety of the game suffered for it.
And I recognize that it has been done wrong in the past, but that doesn't mean it can't be done right. I believe it can.
@paulsifer42 do you dont read your own posts? First you compare BG3 to anything and then the PC gamers thoughts about ported games. And now I´m bored of the subject!
@paulsifer42 do you dont read your own posts? First you compare BG3 to anything and then the PC gamers thoughts about console ported games.
1. "do you dont read" do you read your own posts? 2. BG3 IS part of ANYTHING. The idea is that even if God made a perfect game that would please us all, if He put it on console too, PC gamers would call it crap. 3. I was making an observation. PC gamers automatically believe that if the game is playable on console it must suck. Or I'm assuming this should answer you as, "the PC gamers thoughts about console ported games." is an incomplete thought.
@paulsifer42: Hey, now you're pulling stereotypes. A lot of people whom you consider to be 'PC elitists' are giving reasons which can be considered as legitimate concerns for a console port of BG 3. Also, I call the whole 'PC elitist' a dumb and old term because PC vs Console wars have been around for ages. Just go take a look at the Bioware Social Network. You'll never hear the end of it. It gets tiresome quite fast.
@paulsifer42 It's not that it can't be done it's the fact that the resources involved and time constraints as well as the gameplay itself that ruin these games.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I've only been gaming for a little while, but I've already seen enough of the PC vs Console wars. There seems to be a lot of arrogance on both sides of the fence, and it does get tiresome quickly.
But I'm being honest, I haven't heard an argument for it only being on PC that makes sense to me. I wasn't trying to attack your arguments, but give ways around them. As a person who primarily plays on console, but still loves many games on the PC, I think I have a pretty good handle on what I'd like to see on the console.
For example, Diablo 3 REALLY wouldn't have worked on the console, there are a lot of problems with game play if you take away the mouse. I can't see many of those problems with BG. If you have concerns with it being on the console I'd love to talk about them. But at this point, I don't think there are really any problems that can't be figured out.
@paulsifer42 It's not that it can't be done it's the fact that the resources involved and time constraints as well as the gameplay itself that ruin these games.
It's true that this does happen, but I'm saying that if the EE versions of BG do well enough to afford that kind of money and time, I don't see why it couldn't be ported to a console.
There is a prejudice that if the game is made, even if it is first made for the PC, and it hits a console, it's suddenly worthless, and that's ridiculous.
I disagree with this. Look @paulsifer42, the problem isn't in whether or not they decide to port BG/BGII or BGIII to consoles at some later time. The problem is if the console controls gets taken into consideration when developing BGIII.
If one decides to develop a game that has to run multiple platforms, then one must, by necessity, evaluate the demands and obstacles of these platforms. Then either harmonize these into a common interface, or essentially develop two separate games sharing the same story (expensive).
Now, I know that some might argue that if only the game is "designed for the PC first", then everything will be the same... but that's just not true. I've seen enough developers spout these words, and they probably meant them, when starting out. However there are always compromises. Some games handle these better than others, but they are there nonetheless.
So the problem isn't if they eventually put these games out on consoles. That, in it self, does not make the game shit for the PC-crowd (console-crowd however?). Obviously, PC-gamers could care less whether or not the games controls aren't very good on the console. More POWER to us! ;-)
With this in mind, I, and probably the vast majority of people on here, don't have a problem with BG:EE or BGII:EE being on a console as well. No, I only have a problem with BGIII being co-developed for the console as well.
In the end, who knows? Maybe Overhaul really could put on blinders and develop BGIII purely for PC, and then port it to consoles without taking any consideration of the inherent limitations of these platforms? So far I just haven't seen this happening, because it just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.
@paulsifer42 As you pointed out with Diablo 3 it would not work on a console due to the mouse. This same concept is the same with BG where you can easily replace the mouse functionality with a touch screen, where as a controller would be limited and dumb down the gameplay and possibly the game due to how awkward the controller would be with learning spells, various UI elements and menus that would have to be removed that would ruin the feel of what the game is as well as making access to those elements awkward or slow going to get to when a simple mouse click would have worked. Then you get into DLC and the live market places where you are limited on what you can patch or put on them due to having to pay enormous fees which is why Skyrim has almost no DLC due to microsofts patching limitations.
Even further than the previous though is if the developers wanted to add a toolset or such for players to make their own stuff and keep playing a mouse and keyboard are far easier to use.
For example, Diablo 3 REALLY wouldn't have worked on the console, there are a lot of problems with game play if you take away the mouse.
I actually completely disagree with this. There are plenty of games similar to Diablo on consoles (just look at the Dark Alliance games) to prove that D3 could happen on a console.
@paulsifer42 As you pointed out with Diablo 3 it would not work on a console due to the mouse. This same concept is the same with BG where you can easily replace the mouse functionality with a touch screen, where as a controller would be limited and dumb down the gameplay and possibly the game due to how awkward the controller would be with learning spells, various UI elements and menus that would have to be removed that would ruin the feel of what the game is as well as making access to those elements awkward or slow going to get to when a simple mouse click would have worked. Then you get into DLC and the live market places where you are limited on what you can patch or put on them due to having to pay enormous fees which is why Skyrim has almost no DLC due to microsofts patching limitations.
Even further than the previous though is if the developers wanted to add a toolset or such for players to make their own stuff and keep playing a mouse and keyboard are far easier to use.
I do agree that it would be slower on the console than with a mouse, but I would still prefer it, because I like my console, and I have a hard time believing I'm alone.
As for DLC, modding, etc. as with Skyrim, I understand that I won't have the same options with modding, etc on my console as with my computer, and I'm cool with that.
@paulsifer Preference is one thing, but removing things that make something enjoyable to make it compatible is another thing entirely. As you can hook up a 360 controller to use in most PC games, but the opposite is not true so you have to dumb things down or remove them to make them work for the console controller while leaving the PC side in the dust for having all the fun removed from their preference. Then the DLC model has limited patching and addons for PC because of the console live marketplace restrictions causing less to be put on and less quality as they must be put through extremely strict regulations on what they can and cannot put up for download. This stance is what every game company so far has done to PC gamers which is why there is a bitter resentment towards consoles.
And not to dis your preference, but the option could be to add xbox/ps3 controller functinality at a base level allowing for play console style.
Actually by the time BG3 comes out (and I believe it will - fingers crossed), Microsoft will have brought their Project SmartGlass to maturity hopefully. Essentially you would be playing on a console with a tablet as a second screen/controller similar to the WiiU. No reason why we cannot imagine the possibility of a BG3 on a console in that case
Consoles can bugger off and rot ... One thing recently that drove me absolutely bonkers is that Red Dead Redemption fiasco. Rockstar made a great game and only released it on ... consoles. A game with mostly PC coding run on mostly PC hardware but segregated to ... consoles. A company that started out in games with a PC title GTA. Consoles and the corporate monster business model can bugger off and rot ...
Consoles can bugger off and rot ... I attempt to play skyrim and fallout 3 etc, well interesting games as I have to spend countless hours modding them to bring them up to acceptable visual and gameplay standards for 2012. The community tirelessly creates essential features for games run out of development time and money by ... consoles.
@kunjal29 That would do a lot to help console games be slightly better than what they were, but they still need to at least upgrade their hardware every other year to even compete with PC.
Console controllers hurt my hands, why in Odin's name cannot a console be given a keyboard and mouse and better control resolution. They have mostly PC hardware behind them WTF? ... kids
Oh, but were they "dumbed down" for the casual console gamer market, or "dumbed down" to cater to casuals?
Then there's also the question of if these games really are being "dumbed down" or if they're being improved by being simplified. To me, complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't automatically translate into a better game.
It can go both ways. Mostly it depends on how much thought was put into whether simplification was needed, and if so, how. Let's look at Bioware's latest, Mass Effect. In Mass Effect 2, Bioware had decided to map all of the context actions to a single key/button. There had been some complaints about dumbing down, but there really weren't any major problems with it, so no harm, no foul.
In Mass Effect 3, however, they added more actions without adding more useable buttons. Now, if you happened to be near cover, you might accidentally stick to cover when you were trying to dodge. It's even worse when you try to dodge when near cover with an object that can be activated. And have fun trying to ressurect a team mate in that same spot. You could ressurect him, activate the object, dodge or take cover, with little say in which. All because Bioware refused to allow us to assign actions to the keys we wanted to.
There are other examples that are just as bad, but that's the one that sticks out in recent memory.
Comments
1: They still run just as well on their platform as they did when first released.
2: Most people got rid of their copies so there are fewer in circulation thus raising price due to supply and demand.
3. Drizzt as a playable character.
These 3 are why it is selling for so much, but the biggest one would be #1 a lot of people cannot play the original BG due to how outdated the software is on their systems making bugs and playability huge factors.
"This concept that anything that goes on a console automatically sucks..."
And i think that the PC elitists are only worried about a BG3 console release and not what you make out of it.
So it was directed at me, got it. What I'm trying to say is that the worry is unfounded. Being made for console doesn't make something automatically suck. As I said, I think BGIII should be made for PC first, but that there would be nothing wrong with porting it to consoles if possible. There is a prejudice that if the game is made, even if it is first made for the PC, and it hits a console, it's suddenly worthless, and that's ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you meant by "not what you make out of it." So I can't really speak to that.
The interface is the only real problem, and while not optimal, it could still work.
Limited memory on consoles isn't that big of a problem. Seriously, look at all the games that start on PCs and make their way to consoles.
Is your point that PC gamers simply don't care what I think? I mean, it's cool if they don't, I'm just having a hard time finding your point.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud
I like how you went from 'PC Elitists' to 'old dumb argument.' Just kind of funny.
As to the rest, I haven't heard a good argument for why it can't be on console. Interface is fine, since you can pause gameplay and make decisions (I'd be cool with it). My Xbox has 250 Gigs of memory, how much should I need? I see no real reason why it shouldn't be on console so long as it's made for the PC first.
2. BG3 IS part of ANYTHING. The idea is that even if God made a perfect game that would please us all, if He put it on console too, PC gamers would call it crap.
3. I was making an observation. PC gamers automatically believe that if the game is playable on console it must suck. Or I'm assuming this should answer you as, "the PC gamers thoughts about console ported games." is an incomplete thought.
I've only been gaming for a little while, but I've already seen enough of the PC vs Console wars. There seems to be a lot of arrogance on both sides of the fence, and it does get tiresome quickly.
But I'm being honest, I haven't heard an argument for it only being on PC that makes sense to me. I wasn't trying to attack your arguments, but give ways around them. As a person who primarily plays on console, but still loves many games on the PC, I think I have a pretty good handle on what I'd like to see on the console.
For example, Diablo 3 REALLY wouldn't have worked on the console, there are a lot of problems with game play if you take away the mouse. I can't see many of those problems with BG. If you have concerns with it being on the console I'd love to talk about them. But at this point, I don't think there are really any problems that can't be figured out.
If one decides to develop a game that has to run multiple platforms, then one must, by necessity, evaluate the demands and obstacles of these platforms. Then either harmonize these into a common interface, or essentially develop two separate games sharing the same story (expensive).
Now, I know that some might argue that if only the game is "designed for the PC first", then everything will be the same... but that's just not true. I've seen enough developers spout these words, and they probably meant them, when starting out. However there are always compromises. Some games handle these better than others, but they are there nonetheless.
So the problem isn't if they eventually put these games out on consoles. That, in it self, does not make the game shit for the PC-crowd (console-crowd however?). Obviously, PC-gamers could care less whether or not the games controls aren't very good on the console. More POWER to us! ;-)
With this in mind, I, and probably the vast majority of people on here, don't have a problem with BG:EE or BGII:EE being on a console as well. No, I only have a problem with BGIII being co-developed for the console as well.
In the end, who knows? Maybe Overhaul really could put on blinders and develop BGIII purely for PC, and then port it to consoles without taking any consideration of the inherent limitations of these platforms? So far I just haven't seen this happening, because it just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.
Even further than the previous though is if the developers wanted to add a toolset or such for players to make their own stuff and keep playing a mouse and keyboard are far easier to use.
As for DLC, modding, etc. as with Skyrim, I understand that I won't have the same options with modding, etc on my console as with my computer, and I'm cool with that.
And not to dis your preference, but the option could be to add xbox/ps3 controller functinality at a base level allowing for play console style.
In Mass Effect 3, however, they added more actions without adding more useable buttons. Now, if you happened to be near cover, you might accidentally stick to cover when you were trying to dodge. It's even worse when you try to dodge when near cover with an object that can be activated. And have fun trying to ressurect a team mate in that same spot. You could ressurect him, activate the object, dodge or take cover, with little say in which. All because Bioware refused to allow us to assign actions to the keys we wanted to.
There are other examples that are just as bad, but that's the one that sticks out in recent memory.