@FrozenDervish I know that Microsoft sucks to work with, but again, that doesn't mean that it can't be done, nor does it mean that it wouldn't be a good game. And like I said before, IF there was no dumbing down, why not move it to the console too? Moving to the console does not equal less of a game so long as the game is not altered to make the controller functional, and I don't think it needs to be.
As for the bitter taste, I understand your anger at the companies for screwing over the PC at times, but there's no reason for PC enthusiasts to be rude to console gamers, or the other way around.
To your other comment, I'd say consoles are competing with the PC just fine. Maybe not in the arena you care about, but I'm afraid their winning in the arena that makes stuff happen.
Yes, if a port could happen without PC losing anything it would be fine, but as of yet there has not been a single case where this has even come remotely close.
I agree there is no reason to be rude.
Consoles while putting out multitudes of games are killing the industry with watered down games, starting the DLC trend, and refusing to be innovative or add even the smallest thought processes even playing the game. An example of this is assassin's creed it's so simple that the puzzles aren't even remotely challenging, not to mention it takes cutscenes to even harm me after I've killed countless millions so why am I not a god?
Sometimes simple controls like that make a game easy to the point where the only option open to developers is to give harder settings more damage and hp because they can't improve the AI at all due to the control scheme, and in this case I'm either still untouchable or I am a terrible gamer and die instantly for the guy that dies instantly the game becomes impossible, but for the guy that is untouchable the game difficulty was unchanged.
@FrozenDervish I think you and I see games very differently. When I think of innovation, I think of AC (granted I do have it on the Xbox). It's story is very unique and engaging, and the mechanics are a lot of fun to mess with. I don't mind being a God in that game. For me, hard doesn't equal fun.
Now, I'm not saying that your 'wrong,' I'm just saying that we're different. Although, I'm not sure why you're into BG1 if you're in to difficulty, as even I didn't find it all that difficult. The story is amazing, the characters are easy to love, and the world is fascinating, that's why I love it.
Either way, I don't think the controllers for BGIII would need to be changed or 'dumbed down' for a console (so long as you can pause battles like you can in I and II). Great for everyone.
I agree with everything FrozenDervish has said thus far. Also, keep in mind that when you make a game available for consoles, you automatically also target a different audience. Also, I'm just wondering how such a system with such a big focus on point-and-click mechanics could be flawlessy adapted to a console cotroller. It wouldn't only slow down the game on consiles, but it would also become highly unpractical and difficult to use. Also, what about the graphics? They'd need to get a boost if you'd want them to appear correctly in a TV's high resolution screen. It just seems like a very tedious process to me and I don't think it's a financially viable option for Oster and his team right now, as I don't it would sell well. The console market is just overflowing with games that are technically on a much higher end than any of the Baldur's Gate games (with technically, I mean graphics, user interface etc). Unless there are made drastic changes to the Baldur's Gate games, I don't think they stand a chance in today's console market, no matter how devoted fans might be.
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
Controllers are a lot more comfortable for me than a keyboard+mouse. Controllers are probably one of the reasons that console gaming is popular.
As I see it, BG3 on console can be doable, not denying that fact. AS LONG as the PC version doesn't get simplified because of it (in other words, porting it to the PC = BAD BAD)
Other than that, it can be done. If Strategy games are on consoles, why couldn't BG be? I mean, sure, buttons on a controller are how many, 15 or something?
But the main problem as I see it is that the games, the infinity engine style games, aren't twin stick shooters. The Diablo games would work on that regard : One stick to move, the other to attack, the buttons for abilities. But you don't use the stick in BG to attack, you target an enemy and let the rolls do the rest basically. Which is doable. For example, place the select key as pause button. use right stick to move character, and left stick to target an opponent (which gets surrounded by a sign or something similar. We can also have a "change opponent" button on a control. The rest can easily be done with directional keys while the game is paused. Triggers can change characters in party.
Only problem is, how do party members follow you? Automatically I presume? But that would break the positioning during battles. It would mean a lot of micro management, but as I said, it could be doable.
PS - I want to emphasize : DON'T dumb down the game because of the consoles. Both consoles and PC can have complex games, while with a controller it might not be practical, it's still doable.
@paulsifer42: Well, it's not like the graphics of the Baldur's Gate games are on par with this day's games. However, I don't see this as a problem. BG's graphics have a certain charm to them and they never seem outdated. At least, not to me. But in the end, what do I know about it, eh. I understand why you'd want BG on consoles, but just try to take the arguments of thos who oppose this into consideration. That's all.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I really am trying to, and I do understand that often games get ported to the PC and not nearly as much work goes into the port as it should/ the game ends up too easy for non-casual players. I also see how the controls on the console wouldn't be as quick as those on the PC, but as Cheesebelly pointed out, if strategy games can work on a console, so can a BG game. I really think the big issue here is that the idea hasn't been done well before (or at least no examples come to mind).
The other issue that has been brought up that does make sense is that it might not make financial sense, as in, it might not sell to console players. That's perfectly valid, but it will be figured out by trained professionals, not the crack squad we have here on the forum.
Mostly, what I wish I'd see from the PCers is: Sure, put it on console AS LONG AS IT'S DONE RIGHT. As it is, all I tend to see is: NO! NEVER PUT IT ON CONSOLE! BLASPHEMY! DAMN YOU FOR THINKING SOMETHING SO ABSURD! GET OFF THESE FORUMS YOU BASTARD!
Does that make sense? I don't want them to change what they have planned for a PC BGIII, because that's the game I want too, I just wouldn't mind if I could play it on my couch instead of in my office, and while I understand the PCers are tired of getting shafted, I'd appreciate all of us pushing for a positive solution for everyone, instead of just negative backlash at us gamers for corporations being dicks.
@paulsifer42: There's always risk involved in trying to make a game accessible on various platforms and the idea has indeed not done well before, so to speak, so I don't see this being NOT a valid reason. It is indeed a question of whether console gamers in this day and age will be attracted to a 10 year old game brought on consoles. Afterall, the gaming industry has evolved a lot in these past years (whether in a good direction or not, that's another story) and gamers tend to look forward, not backward. I don't see how the so-called 'crack squad' (such a nice term) couldn't figure this out as well, at least, if they look further than their own nose is long. And there are a lot of people in this topic who said it could be brought on console, at least if it's done right and the game keeps its charm. Maybe you're focusing too much on the negative comments.
The main issue with porting to consoles in my opinion is the lack of an effective controller. That is why games have to be 'dumbed down' for consoles. The handheld controllers cannot hold a candle to the combination of a keyboard and mouse.
This is all set to change with the introduction of new technologies such as Kinect and SmartGlass for tablets. The biggest hurdle is putting all this tech together to create an easy and intuitive controller interface. The person who figures this out will make a killing if they patent it and license it for console gaming.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud It wouldn't be a ten year old game, it'd be BGIII, a new BG. Look at all the 2D platformers that are being made recently, and are selling quiet well, they don't have great graphics, but are doing fine. An even better example is Bastion, it has done very well on the Xbox, and it looks very similar to BG, if not a little more cartoony. I think the market might be there, but then, I'm a little too close to the issue, I AM a gamer who wants this on console, so I'll inevitably see the best possibilities. That's why I consider us a 'crack squad.' We're all very close to the issue and have no way of gathering reliable data.
As for me focusing on the negative, you're probably right. Just as PCers are sick of corporations screwing them over, I'm sick of being insulted for wanting good games on consoles. We're all human, I guess.
@paulsifer42: Well, there's no problem with being hopeful. I understand your feelings. It juast has to be done right, I guess. As for PC gamers getting screwed over by big corporations, well, it's not just them. Console gamers suffer just as much, because it seems that consoles more and more often tend to focus on the 'social' part too, such as microtransactions. (Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, for example) I have my doubts about the next generation of consoles, to be honest. Ah, the days of the good ol' Nintendo 64, for which you just had to plug it in to your TV screen and put a cartridge in the console...How much simpler could it be? I miss those times. I stopped playing on consoles because it just became too tedious to keep up with the constant release of newer consoles, which is, in my opinion, the biggest disadvantage of consoles in general. ANYWAY, I'm derailing the topic, sorry. Well, in any case, you can hope, right? Maybe BG 3 will someday appear on consoles, who knows? But in the meantime we gotta make sure to support Trent Oster and his team as the loyal fans we are! *waves fan-flag*
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I am getting tired of single player games pushing to become multi-player. I think there was a nice line. Call of Battlefields are great multi-player games, so let's keep them that way. Assassin's Effect are great single player games. Why are they paying money to try and make them something else? It baffles and annoys me. You're right though, we are derailing. For sure, I think we're all (except maybe some trolls) very much unified in the supporting of Trent and team. *Chants "GO OSTLER! GO OSTLER! GO OSTLER!" with Kitten*
Oster, sorry. I think I add the L in subconsciously whenever I read his name because I know some Ostlers... hmm, well don't I feel stupid. Oh well, won't be the last time.
It's fine, just as long as BG3 is written as a PC game first, foremost and released. Then it can be ported over to the console scene.
Far too many PC games have been developed alongside for the console, and they come off as being simplistic due to the limited control variables console controllers can apply.
That would be something I would not want to happen to an RPG series of this scope and detail.
They will never do this, simply because the pc is a lot more forgiving when it goes from console to pc instead of pc to console. The amount of money and time saved is simply too great.
The biggest problem i have with the console ports is the mouse lag. They can't even remove the silly code for the controller cursor, and leave it on the pc version so it needs to do needles calculations for the cursor every time you move the mouse.
Comments
I know that Microsoft sucks to work with, but again, that doesn't mean that it can't be done, nor does it mean that it wouldn't be a good game. And like I said before, IF there was no dumbing down, why not move it to the console too? Moving to the console does not equal less of a game so long as the game is not altered to make the controller functional, and I don't think it needs to be.
As for the bitter taste, I understand your anger at the companies for screwing over the PC at times, but there's no reason for PC enthusiasts to be rude to console gamers, or the other way around.
To your other comment, I'd say consoles are competing with the PC just fine. Maybe not in the arena you care about, but I'm afraid their winning in the arena that makes stuff happen.
I agree there is no reason to be rude.
Consoles while putting out multitudes of games are killing the industry with watered down games, starting the DLC trend, and refusing to be innovative or add even the smallest thought processes even playing the game. An example of this is assassin's creed it's so simple that the puzzles aren't even remotely challenging, not to mention it takes cutscenes to even harm me after I've killed countless millions so why am I not a god?
Sometimes simple controls like that make a game easy to the point where the only option open to developers is to give harder settings more damage and hp because they can't improve the AI at all due to the control scheme, and in this case I'm either still untouchable or I am a terrible gamer and die instantly for the guy that dies instantly the game becomes impossible, but for the guy that is untouchable the game difficulty was unchanged.
I think you and I see games very differently. When I think of innovation, I think of AC (granted I do have it on the Xbox). It's story is very unique and engaging, and the mechanics are a lot of fun to mess with. I don't mind being a God in that game. For me, hard doesn't equal fun.
Now, I'm not saying that your 'wrong,' I'm just saying that we're different. Although, I'm not sure why you're into BG1 if you're in to difficulty, as even I didn't find it all that difficult. The story is amazing, the characters are easy to love, and the world is fascinating, that's why I love it.
Either way, I don't think the controllers for BGIII would need to be changed or 'dumbed down' for a console (so long as you can pause battles like you can in I and II). Great for everyone.
Other than that, it can be done. If Strategy games are on consoles, why couldn't BG be? I mean, sure, buttons on a controller are how many, 15 or something?
But the main problem as I see it is that the games, the infinity engine style games, aren't twin stick shooters. The Diablo games would work on that regard : One stick to move, the other to attack, the buttons for abilities. But you don't use the stick in BG to attack, you target an enemy and let the rolls do the rest basically. Which is doable. For example, place the select key as pause button. use right stick to move character, and left stick to target an opponent (which gets surrounded by a sign or something similar. We can also have a "change opponent" button on a control. The rest can easily be done with directional keys while the game is paused. Triggers can change characters in party.
Only problem is, how do party members follow you? Automatically I presume? But that would break the positioning during battles. It would mean a lot of micro management, but as I said, it could be doable.
PS - I want to emphasize : DON'T dumb down the game because of the consoles. Both consoles and PC can have complex games, while with a controller it might not be practical, it's still doable.
Agreed +1
Liked +1
Dunno if i can take a hit as big as seeing BG on consoles. Would be...just too much !
The other issue that has been brought up that does make sense is that it might not make financial sense, as in, it might not sell to console players. That's perfectly valid, but it will be figured out by trained professionals, not the crack squad we have here on the forum.
Mostly, what I wish I'd see from the PCers is: Sure, put it on console AS LONG AS IT'S DONE RIGHT. As it is, all I tend to see is: NO! NEVER PUT IT ON CONSOLE! BLASPHEMY! DAMN YOU FOR THINKING SOMETHING SO ABSURD! GET OFF THESE FORUMS YOU BASTARD!
Does that make sense? I don't want them to change what they have planned for a PC BGIII, because that's the game I want too, I just wouldn't mind if I could play it on my couch instead of in my office, and while I understand the PCers are tired of getting shafted, I'd appreciate all of us pushing for a positive solution for everyone, instead of just negative backlash at us gamers for corporations being dicks.
This is all set to change with the introduction of new technologies such as Kinect and SmartGlass for tablets. The biggest hurdle is putting all this tech together to create an easy and intuitive controller interface. The person who figures this out will make a killing if they patent it and license it for console gaming.
It wouldn't be a ten year old game, it'd be BGIII, a new BG. Look at all the 2D platformers that are being made recently, and are selling quiet well, they don't have great graphics, but are doing fine. An even better example is Bastion, it has done very well on the Xbox, and it looks very similar to BG, if not a little more cartoony. I think the market might be there, but then, I'm a little too close to the issue, I AM a gamer who wants this on console, so I'll inevitably see the best possibilities. That's why I consider us a 'crack squad.' We're all very close to the issue and have no way of gathering reliable data.
As for me focusing on the negative, you're probably right. Just as PCers are sick of corporations screwing them over, I'm sick of being insulted for wanting good games on consoles. We're all human, I guess.
I am getting tired of single player games pushing to become multi-player. I think there was a nice line. Call of Battlefields are great multi-player games, so let's keep them that way. Assassin's Effect are great single player games. Why are they paying money to try and make them something else? It baffles and annoys me. You're right though, we are derailing. For sure, I think we're all (except maybe some trolls) very much unified in the supporting of Trent and team. *Chants "GO OSTLER! GO OSTLER! GO OSTLER!" with Kitten*
*queue Won't get fooled again intro*
The amount of money and time saved is simply too great.
The biggest problem i have with the console ports is the mouse lag.
They can't even remove the silly code for the controller cursor, and leave it on the pc version so it needs to do needles calculations for the cursor every time you move the mouse.