I assume you did not read all the posts here, some of your points have been answered already. Anyway:
My experience at programming is a modest one, true. But I do not need one to know that there are games of similar complexity without so many bugs, there are even remakes without them. And BGEE had and has more bugs than BG has. Let's take the famous broken scroll quest from the prologue, it takes 30 seconds of gameplay to find this bug, but it was not found. What does it mean? Simply that devs implement changes without running a single test.
You are quite charitable with things that you apparently have very little knowledge of. I defy you to name some of these games that are generally agreed to (a) have a of similar complexity, (b) were developed or re-worked on the same number of staff/budget that Beamdog had available and on the same timeline, (c) now have fewer bugs and/or resolved more bugs than were done so for BG:EE and (d) delivered as much value for the buck as BG:EE did. Instead of talking about this, you choose to say “See. This bug still exists.”
I am not saying that you have to give point for point equal time to every one of your grievances, but to merely say you expect a Bugless experience is a bit unreasonable, not to mention uncharitable and not reflective of the work that WAS done. Besides, name one PC game (or any game at all that has come out in the last 10 years) that is ‘Bugless’. I can’t think of any. Certainly not of any worth or complexity, and BG is VERY complex in its way in comparison with 90% of what comes out today. Not to mention, for the cost, it is (bugs or no) still a large site better than most games I can mention.
2. I've never suggested to use IWD2 code, just gave an example of a different team than Bioware's making interesting and useful changes to the game code. If they could why not Overhaul? Either they lacked the skill or ideas. Both options do not make warm to them honestly.
You said several times that if IWD could do it, that BG should do it. You can’t have it both ways. I read somewhere a while back (and can’t find the link so I didn’t want to mention it, but…) that IWD2 was, in terms of the Infinity Engine, the equivalent of BG 2.5. In programming terms, that means on it’s way to the third generation of finished product (or in Microsoft terms, fifth generation). Replicating that from scratch would have been a HUGE undertaking by all accounts. And since the expected margin for BG:EE wasn’t anywhere near what was in IWD2, you can more or less imagine that they didn’t have the resources necessary to copy that work. That isn’t to say that they didn’t tackle a large number of bugs, a fact that you feel comfortable ignoring completely.
3. I have requested some changes long before the game was published, they never have been implemented. And things like terrible pathfinding in the game aren't a secret.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. You requested change and your issues were not fixed to your satisfaction. That is a shame. I am sure that a lot of people can sympathize with you on that. And equally I am sure that the DEVs wish that they could resolve all of the issues brought up. But they prioritized what they could and worked on them. And they are STILL working on it, despite it generating no new revenue. I know large and well known (and funded) gaming companies that put out broken crap for games, never EVER patch them and just say “You bought it AS IS. Deal with it!” Overhaul didn’t do that. Give them some credit for that. For $19.99 (or whatever you ended up paying for the game), I think it is a steal. Try taking that same money and have dinner and a movie out. See how much that Mc-meal gets you in the way of satisfaction.
As far as the pathing is concerned, I did read something that Trent commented about during the development phase in that they tried to fix the path-finding. The result was that it was a huge mess and far beyond the resources they had available. So if that was your huge issue, I think you will find a lot of people agree that it is still a factor. But they don’t post a flame about it.
You propose a comparison I cannot really make, I do not know the budget Overhaul operated on, so how can I compare it to similar? But you are completely missing the point. Let's say that indeed it was budget constraint that resulted in the number of bugs the game has, well, so that's my point - I regret the game wasn't made by someone who had the resources and thus consider it to be a wasted opportunity. But to take your request for a comparison further - Baldur's Gate. A year ago, playing Baldur's Gate I had a bugless experience, sure there might be some minor bugs, but nothing game breaking. Of course I am including community fixes, but since those bugs have been researched there is no reason to disregard them. No a year later still, BG1/2 are less buggy than BG:EE.
I didn't say that if IWD2 did it, BG:EE should do it. I believe that doing this would be a good idea (do you honestly prefer BG:EE inteface as it is and see no room for improvement?) I say that if IWD2 could do it than it was possible for BG:EE too. I used this example anticipating the argument you used in other place "it's too difficult, it wasn't their code". IWD series was done by a different team too.
I am happy that Overhaul are patching the game, that they added kits in a patch etc. I never said that they are terrible people who do not deserve any credit. I just think they had potential to do more with the game then what they did and hope they will.
I don't agree with many of the complaints, but this game was very buggy and there were not many improvements to the interface. The commitment they have shown to patching the game makes me forgive a lot. But the problems are there.
I think everyone is focusing way to much on the example of IWD2 that the OP made. It is simply a request for interface enhancements in a game titled "Enhanced Edition." Who cares where the code comes from at all? Just offer enhancements if you are going to call it by the name.
And the game being broken on Intel graphics and then being told that they didn't have test beds with Intel graphics was less than stellar. That is a large percentage of the install base in existence. Especially for an older game with no expectation of discreet graphics requirements.
None of this makes for a wasted opportunity. I think it is just the opposite. I'm excited about the future of the community and hope these versions rekindle the modding magic! I'll be buying BG2:EE as soon as it appears in playable form or they offer a compelling preorder inducement. A forum badge doesn't count.
I assume you did not read all the posts here, some of your points have been answered already. Anyway:
1. My experience at programming is a modest one, true. But I do not need one to know that there are games of similar complexity without so many bugs, there are even remakes without them. And BGEE had and has more bugs than BG has. Let's take the famous broken scroll quest from the prologue, it takes 30 seconds of gameplay to find this bug, but it was not found. What does it mean? Simply that devs implement changes without running a single test.
No absolutes eh?
Well, I fail to imagine (which surely can only mean that I lack the necessary imagination) how they could have done serious testing and miss a bug visible just after starting the game. While I may be wrong, using Occam's logic I have to conclude that they did not do any testing on that particular occasion.
None of this makes for a wasted opportunity. I think it is just the opposite. I'm excited about the future of the community and hope these versions rekindle the modding magic! I'll be buying BG2:EE as soon as it appears in playable form or they offer a compelling preorder inducement. A forum badge doesn't count.
Very good point. I have to add that this thread amazes me how many people simply love this game, I think this add a whole new value to the game as a whole and indeed we may hope what you say will come to pass.
Let's take the famous broken scroll quest from the prologue, it takes 30 seconds of gameplay to find this bug, but it was not found. What does it mean? Simply that devs implement changes without running a single test.
Oddly, I have never once experienced this bug since BG:EE was released.
You propose a comparison I cannot really make, I do not know the budget Overhaul operated on, so how can I compare it to similar?
Yet you are freely condemning the game anyway. If you can’t compare it to comparable base case, what value your assessment? I think your exact words were
But I do not need one to know that there are games of similar complexity without so many bugs, there are even remakes without them
If you know that, name a few. Let’s see what you feel is comparable work. But understand that I could easily say that PONG had fewer bugs than BG:EE. Would you say that was a fair comparison? It’s a true statement, but doesn’t reflect the amount of work that went into making Pong versus BG:EE.
But you are completely missing the point. Let's say that indeed it was budget constraint that resulted in the number of bugs the game has, well, so that's my point - I regret the game wasn't made by someone who had the resources and thus consider it to be a wasted opportunity. But to take your request for a comparison further - Baldur's Gate. A year ago, playing Baldur's Gate I had a bugless experience, sure there might be some minor bugs, but nothing game breaking. Of course I am including community fixes, but since those bugs have been researched there is no reason to disregard them. No a year later still, BG1/2 are less buggy than BG:EE.
I got your point just fine. You miss mine. You keep on complaining that (in essence) the company botched the attempt. Yet you refuse to give any credit at all for work done. And further claim that they should be able to improve upon the compiled work of 10 years of modders numbering in the dozens and potentially hundreds. That’s a pretty high bar to set. Could it be that the problem was with your expectations?
I didn't say that if IWD2 did it, BG:EE should do it. I believe that doing this would be a good idea (do you honestly prefer BG:EE inteface as it is and see no room for improvement?) I say that if IWD2 could do it than it was possible for BG:EE too. I used this example anticipating the argument you used in other place "it's too difficult, it wasn't their code". IWD series was done by a different team too.
Yes, IWD was done by a different team as well; a much larger team with more resources. Understand that at the time they had certain real expectations of sales volume that no longer exists after ten years. They also had a much higher price point to work with. And unless I am mistaken, IWD was developed over a period of 4 or more years. Not so with BG:EE. Yet your expectation is that the same level and quantity of work should reflect.
I am happy that Overhaul are patching the game, that they added kits in a patch etc. I never said that they are terrible people who do not deserve any credit. I just think they had potential to do more with the game then what they did and hope they will.
In fact, I would suggest you go back and read your original post. You are saying exactly that they do not deserve credit because the job was a ‘Missed opportunity’. At very least, the topic thread is intentionally negative and derogatory. Your own original post appears likewise to be a condemnation with no nod what so ever to what WAS done. If you didn’t mean to be negative about it, I would rethink most of your original post in the light of saying things like “Although they fixed some things, I would have hoped or preferred if they fixed more things”. That at least acknowledges what was done.
If you know that, name a few. Let’s see what you feel is comparable work.
If I may, I would say that Age of Empires II HD is probably the closest you will get to a fair comparison, being of a similar age. Even that, however, most likely had a larger budget than BG:EE - simply due to being Microsoft. It is also very jumpy when scrolling and often see visible performance issues, even on my dual GTX690 and 6-core Intel Extreme setup (which I might add is truly remarkable that a game like AoE2 HD could actually drain the system resources when a game like Skyrim runs very smoothly), and I prefer to play the original AoE2 because of it.
BG:EE certainly does have its bugs, there's no denying that, but I don't think it is fair to talk about comparisons and then not name any - so there's the only comparison that I can think of right now.
@Troodon80 - thanks for that. It's always good to have comparisons and I am trying to get out of @Borsook exactly what they think warrants a failed attempt. Where they are setting the bar and why. Particularly as they have stated several times that other games have done much better.
I am of a mind to point out Neverwinter Nights2 and how it was at launch. Even today it is not without it's bugs a plenty. And look at how large that team was. Community modders have fixed quite a lot of the issues it is true, not to mention all of the love that Tony K and Kaedrin did on the AI and interfaces. Still, not all of the issues have been resolved.
At the end of the day, it is fine that the OP is disappointed with BG:EE. And if they have legitimate expectations and complaints, this is the place to post them. I think the problem is in their ability to communicate effectively what they see as the problem. As is, they are posting what might be seen in some eyes as flame bait. Best to rephrase and actually re-think such that they can get some momentum behind them instead of what they have gotten thus far.
You propose a comparison I cannot really make, I do not know the budget Overhaul operated on, so how can I compare it to similar?
Yet you are freely condemning the game anyway. If you can’t compare it to comparable base case, what value your assessment? I think your exact words were
But I do not need one to know that there are games of similar complexity without so many bugs, there are even remakes without them
If you know that, name a few. Let’s see what you feel is comparable work. But understand that I could easily say that PONG had fewer bugs than BG:EE. Would you say that was a fair comparison? It’s a true statement, but doesn’t reflect the amount of work that went into making Pong versus BG:EE.
But you are completely missing the point. Let's say that indeed it was budget constraint that resulted in the number of bugs the game has, well, so that's my point - I regret the game wasn't made by someone who had the resources and thus consider it to be a wasted opportunity. But to take your request for a comparison further - Baldur's Gate. A year ago, playing Baldur's Gate I had a bugless experience, sure there might be some minor bugs, but nothing game breaking. Of course I am including community fixes, but since those bugs have been researched there is no reason to disregard them. No a year later still, BG1/2 are less buggy than BG:EE.
I got your point just fine. You miss mine. You keep on complaining that (in essence) the company botched the attempt. Yet you refuse to give any credit at all for work done. And further claim that they should be able to improve upon the compiled work of 10 years of modders numbering in the dozens and potentially hundreds. That’s a pretty high bar to set. Could it be that the problem was with your expectations?
I didn't say that if IWD2 did it, BG:EE should do it. I believe that doing this would be a good idea (do you honestly prefer BG:EE inteface as it is and see no room for improvement?) I say that if IWD2 could do it than it was possible for BG:EE too. I used this example anticipating the argument you used in other place "it's too difficult, it wasn't their code". IWD series was done by a different team too.
Yes, IWD was done by a different team as well; a much larger team with more resources. Understand that at the time they had certain real expectations of sales volume that no longer exists after ten years. They also had a much higher price point to work with. And unless I am mistaken, IWD was developed over a period of 4 or more years. Not so with BG:EE. Yet your expectation is that the same level and quantity of work should reflect.
I am happy that Overhaul are patching the game, that they added kits in a patch etc. I never said that they are terrible people who do not deserve any credit. I just think they had potential to do more with the game then what they did and hope they will.
In fact, I would suggest you go back and read your original post. You are saying exactly that they do not deserve credit because the job was a ‘Missed opportunity’. At very least, the topic thread is intentionally negative and derogatory. Your own original post appears likewise to be a condemnation with no nod what so ever to what WAS done. If you didn’t mean to be negative about it, I would rethink most of your original post in the light of saying things like “Although they fixed some things, I would have hoped or preferred if they fixed more things”. That at least acknowledges what was done.
Ok, you still ignore the gist of what I am trying to say. So the team was too small, they didn't have enough time and money - that is why I consider it to be a wasted opportunity, I regret the EE version was not done by somebody who had the time, money and manpower, because there will be no other chance of EE. I gave you a comparison to a default BG1, which works better than the BG:EE a year after its release, you ignore the point brought by @Treyolen, I have an Intel GPU and after a year I cannot play BG:EE in fullscreen, no such problems with BG1. Anyhow, other big games that I remember that have a small number of bugs - Homm3, Massive Assault, Icewind Dale, Wizardy 8, Divine Divinity. Sure there are games that are more buggy - e.g. TOEE. The only thing that I am claiming is that it is not impossible to create a game without a huge number of bugs? I'd just wish for BGEE to be better in this respect than vanilla BG. Is this really so demanding and unreasonable? And yes, I do appreciate the patches, the patch that we are waiting for seems to solve (maybe) most of the rendering problems, but should they have existed in the first place? Do you really feel the justification "we didn't test on Intel" is acceptable? And let's bear in mind we are not taking about a years old problem that they didn't solve but a completely new issue they have introduced.
Ok, you still ignore the gist of what I am trying to say. So the team was too small, they didn't have enough time and money - that is why I consider it to be a wasted opportunity, I regret the EE version was not done by somebody who had the time, money and manpower, because there will be no other chance of EE.
And I regret that I didn't put the numbers 33, 21 ,...,5 in the lottery. You are are talking like there was a queue of studios who wanted to remake//enhance BG1 - it took 14(!!) months to Beamdog only to get a permission to even touch BG1, and even that is with a lot of contract limitations.
Do you think that in the age of Kickstarter anyone else would pick up the glove and touch this decade and a half old game(taking into account that you have go through hell with Atari,EA and Hasbro)??? sorry to shutter your dream, but no one else would!
Ok, you still ignore the gist of what I am trying to say. So the team was too small, they didn't have enough time and money - that is why I consider it to be a wasted opportunity, I regret the EE version was not done by somebody who had the time, money and manpower, because there will be no other chance of EE. I gave you a comparison to a default BG1, which works better than the BG:EE a year after its release, you ignore the point brought by @Treyolen, I have an Intel GPU and after a year I cannot play BG:EE in fullscreen, no such problems with BG1. Anyhow, other big games that I remember that have a small number of bugs - Homm3, Massive Assault, Icewind Dale, Wizardy 8, Divine Divinity. Sure there are games that are more buggy - e.g. TOEE. The only thing that I am claiming is that it is not impossible to create a game without a huge number of bugs? I'd just wish for BGEE to be better in this respect than vanilla BG. Is this really so demanding and unreasonable? And yes, I do appreciate the patches, the patch that we are waiting for seems to solve (maybe) most of the rendering problems, but should they have existed in the first place? Do you really feel the justification "we didn't test on Intel" is acceptable? And let's bear in mind we are not taking about a years old problem that they didn't solve but a completely new issue they have introduced.
I'm not ignoring the gist of what your saying. I'm saying that the gist of what your saying ignores the facts of life, only represents a part of the picture and is ultimately a very narrow and limiting point of view not to mention wholly negative.
I said before, if you have legitimate complaints about the game, let's hear them.
Are there games out there with less bugs? Yes. Are there successful games out there with a whole lot more bugs? Absolutely. Are there fewer bugs now than there were before? Absolutely.
Was the game improved at all over the original? Well, there's zoom. There are kits. There are new NPCs and magic items. There is a whole new section (several in fact).
Is the game a 5 Star game? NO. Do you pay 5 Star prices? No. Did you get the asking price out of the new content? I did.
@the_spyder You keep talking about other games and how many bugs they have. That really isn't relevant to the discussion. If my kid came home with a report card full of D's and said it was ok because everyone else got F's he would still be in trouble. No one expects a completely bug free experience in this day and age. But I think it was the nature of the bugs in this release that particularly bothered me. Not working on Intel graphics was a major issue for me and many others. That isn't an obscure issue that should fall through the cracks.
And there is a legitimate value proposition for an update of an old game when the original is still being sold for about half of the cost on a well established game service. I'm completely willing to take the long view and assume that many features will continue to be added and back ported from future releases. But that doesn't mean that as of now the "enhancements" aren't less than expected. I disagree with @Borsook on his overall assessment. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't raise some valid points.
I understand all of the hurdles the team is facing. But as a consumer I really don't care. I just want a good product at a good price. If the problems are such that they can't deliver then this isn't a project that should continue. I happen to have faith that this is a worthwhile endeavor and I'm very pleased with the results so far. But I don't want to hear about the pain, just show me the baby.
Ok, you still ignore the gist of what I am trying to say. So the team was too small, they didn't have enough time and money - that is why I consider it to be a wasted opportunity, I regret the EE version was not done by somebody who had the time, money and manpower, because there will be no other chance of EE. I gave you a comparison to a default BG1, which works better than the BG:EE a year after its release, you ignore the point brought by @Treyolen, I have an Intel GPU and after a year I cannot play BG:EE in fullscreen, no such problems with BG1. Anyhow, other big games that I remember that have a small number of bugs - Homm3, Massive Assault, Icewind Dale, Wizardy 8, Divine Divinity. Sure there are games that are more buggy - e.g. TOEE. The only thing that I am claiming is that it is not impossible to create a game without a huge number of bugs? I'd just wish for BGEE to be better in this respect than vanilla BG. Is this really so demanding and unreasonable? And yes, I do appreciate the patches, the patch that we are waiting for seems to solve (maybe) most of the rendering problems, but should they have existed in the first place? Do you really feel the justification "we didn't test on Intel" is acceptable? And let's bear in mind we are not taking about a years old problem that they didn't solve but a completely new issue they have introduced.
I'm not ignoring the gist of what your saying. I'm saying that the gist of what your saying ignores the facts of life, only represents a part of the picture and is ultimately a very narrow and limiting point of view not to mention wholly negative.
I said before, if you have legitimate complaints about the game, let's hear them.
Are there games out there with less bugs? Yes. Are there successful games out there with a whole lot more bugs? Absolutely. Are there fewer bugs now than there were before? Absolutely.
Was the game improved at all over the original? Well, there's zoom. There are kits. There are new NPCs and magic items. There is a whole new section (several in fact).
Is the game a 5 Star game? NO. Do you pay 5 Star prices? No. Did you get the asking price out of the new content? I did.
Well, I believe all my complaints are legitimate. You may of course disagree, but which one do you disagree with? The fact that to this day it doesn't work properly on Intel Gpus? That no meaningful changes have been done to its UI? That pathfinding has not been improved?
There are, to my knowledge 2 things EE gave us on PC platform that were not possible to mod into BG2:
-zoom -smother loading.
Both are nice but are they worth 20 dollars? You seem to say that this is a small amount, I do not remember ever buying a game for more, I know there are games priced higher, but there are plenty of new games in this price range. Considering most of the game existed before we may consider this pricing as fair but cheap? I don't think so. For me personally it would raise the game's worth considerably if it would offer at least an easy experience, as it is it doesn't I get less bugs running Tutu. Is that not a legitimate complaint?
I wouldn't call them 100% wasted, since they generated hype for Baldur's Gate in general and maybe for other oldschool rpgs! The multiple platform support might make the EEs worth buying for some people.
On the whole, the concept of an Enhanced Edition, HD or whatever you want to call it is problematic. For those people who already own the games in question, there's not much point in buying a game that you already have, unless you want it for a different platform. Otherwise, there should be literally tons of new content, complete engine overhaul, all bugfixes imaginable or a golden calf. And as for people who haven't played them, they may buy the game from GoG or even order it from a brick & mortar store (it's true!!!) for a very cheap price, and thanks to the internet, they know exactly what they're getting.
I wouldn't call them 100% wasted, since they generated hype for Baldur's Gate in general and maybe for other oldschool rpgs! The multiple platform support might make the EEs worth buying for some people.
On the whole, the concept of an Enhanced Edition, HD or whatever you want to call it is problematic. For those people who already own the games in question, there's not much point in buying a game that you already have, unless you want it for a different platform. Otherwise, there should be literally tons of new content, complete engine overhaul, all bugfixes imaginable or a golden calf. And as for people who haven't played them, they may buy the game from GoG or even order it from a brick & mortar store (it's true!!!) for a very cheap price, and thanks to the internet, they know exactly what they're getting.
Good point, those who run on IOS and presumably Android in the future clearly benefit I agree, of course I meant it purely from PC perspective.
@the_spyder You keep talking about other games and how many bugs they have. That really isn't relevant to the discussion. If my kid came home with a report card full of D's and said it was ok because everyone else got F's he would still be in trouble. No one expects a completely bug free experience in this day and age. But I think it was the nature of the bugs in this release that particularly bothered me. Not working on Intel graphics was a major issue for me and many others. That isn't an obscure issue that should fall through the cracks.
I'd say it is quite relevant, since it establishes a baseline of how many bugs are 'acceptable'/usual. Without it, there is no norm to determine how many bugs can reasonably be considered 'too many'. If a game has far more bugs than is typical, it may be time to take a harder look at the developers. But if it is about on par with industry standards, it is more likely that there are systemic reasons why fewer bugs (at launch) is not practically possible.
To use your example: if your kid comes home with all 5's (out of 10) on his report card on a class average of 7, there might indeed be an issue with your kid. But if it is 5's all around, I would be inclined to think there is something wrong with the teacher/class/school itself.
@Morte50 Which is still relativism. Yes, you apparently can't get nearly bug-free games these days. But just because you can't doesn't mean, that it's inappropiate to voice complaints, critique or whatever you may call it.
@Borsook 's points are still valid, if you look at them from a consumer perspective and not from a die-hard fan of the game/the developer.
Yes, you have to jump through some hoops with mods, but if you know what you're doing you can get the same experience and more for less cash spent.
Which is a point that seems to be glossed over all to often.
@the_spyder You keep talking about other games and how many bugs they have. That really isn't relevant to the discussion. If my kid came home with a report card full of D's and said it was ok because everyone else got F's he would still be in trouble. No one expects a completely bug free experience in this day and age. But I think it was the nature of the bugs in this release that particularly bothered me. Not working on Intel graphics was a major issue for me and many others. That isn't an obscure issue that should fall through the cracks.
And there is a legitimate value proposition for an update of an old game when the original is still being sold for about half of the cost on a well established game service. I'm completely willing to take the long view and assume that many features will continue to be added and back ported from future releases. But that doesn't mean that as of now the "enhancements" aren't less than expected. I disagree with @Borsook on his overall assessment. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't raise some valid points.
I understand all of the hurdles the team is facing. But as a consumer I really don't care. I just want a good product at a good price. If the problems are such that they can't deliver then this isn't a project that should continue. I happen to have faith that this is a worthwhile endeavor and I'm very pleased with the results so far. But I don't want to hear about the pain, just show me the baby.
If your child came home with a D and the highest grade in the class for the past 5 years was a D, I wouldn't fault the child. I'd fault the teacher. See the relevance?
Well, I believe all my complaints are legitimate. You may of course disagree, but which one do you disagree with? The fact that to this day it doesn't work properly on Intel Gpus? That no meaningful changes have been done to its UI? That pathfinding has not been improved?
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. These are indeed legitimate reasons why you did not like the game. However, these are not reasons why Overhaul missed an opportunity.
I am not sure about the GPU issue, but I would (always assuming you haven't already) post on the issues forum on this. If the developers aren't working on this, I'd be surprised.
AS far as the "Meaningful changes to the UI" this is highly subjective. You may feel that there are necessary changes, but your "Necessary" is someone else's nice to have and yet someone else's please don't do. If you want to not like the game because of this, understand this isn't because Overhaul failed anyone but you.
As far as the pathfinding is concerned, I think we covered this. They tried to fix it and it was so involved in the base code as to be beyond the scope of what they intended. Let me ask you though, is IWD still having problems with path-finding? I know that Neverwinter Nights 2 still suffers from it. So could this be beyond fixing?
There are, to my knowledge 2 things EE gave us on PC platform that were not possible to mod into BG2:
-zoom -smother loading.
Both are nice but are they worth 20 dollars? You seem to say that this is a small amount, I do not remember ever buying a game for more, I know there are games priced higher, but there are plenty of new games in this price range. Considering most of the game existed before we may consider this pricing as fair but cheap? I don't think so. For me personally it would raise the game's worth considerably if it would offer at least an easy experience, as it is it doesn't I get less bugs running Tutu. Is that not a legitimate complaint?
And all of the bug fixes? What about kits? NPCs? What about new areas such as the arena? What about new areas related to the new NPCs? What about new magic items? These are all additional to the things you listed. You personally may not enjoy them and may not find them a value add. You are entitled to that opinion, but your statements seem to want to ignore that these things exist.
@Morte50 Which is still relativism. Yes, you apparently can't get nearly bug-free games these days. But just because you can't doesn't mean, that it's inappropiate to voice complaints, critique or whatever you may call it.
Relativism, as opposed to what? It isn't as if there is an absolute norm on how many of which kinds of bugs are acceptable. All games have a pile of bugs (which they most certainly did in the past as well, your implied claim to the contrary notwithstanding), the complexity of the code itself and the variable context in which it has to operate make it essentially impossible to eliminate all of them. So while people are of course free to voice their criticism and complaints, it would behoove them to check whether their expectations are reasonable.
Since I am getting tired of repeating the same argument all over again let me summarise. This is still a great game, but it had potential to be so much better, and the way it was made it offers very little over what could have been achieved with Tutu/BGT. While most technical bugs are registered and probably will be fixed in the new patch which is supposed to the have the new rendering engine, it is still not out so we don't really know and can't be sure. Chances are the technical complaints will finally be gone over a year after it's publication. Is that terrible? Maybe not. Could have it been better? Wasn't there an opportunity for a better release? I believe yes. And that's all from me on the topic
I am not sure about the GPU issue, but I would (always assuming you haven't already) post on the issues forum on this. If the developers aren't working on this, I'd be surprised.
This issue has already been brought up many times. And yes, the developers are working on it (should be fixed with the new renderer), but we don't know how much longer that will be.
And all of the bug fixes? What about kits? NPCs? What about new areas such as the arena? What about new areas related to the new NPCs? What about new magic items? These are all additional to the things you listed. You personally may not enjoy them and may not find them a value add. You are entitled to that opinion, but your statements seem to want to ignore that these things exist.
There are, to my knowledge 2 things EE gave us on PC platform that were not possible to mod into BG2:
Additional kits, NPC, magic items, bug fixes*, etc. are all readily available in the form of mods. I seem to remember there being some mods that even added new areas, although I'm not sure.
*I realize that there are many more bugfixes in BG:EE than in the Fixpack (I believe this is a result of being able to fix previously hard-coded bugs). But it seems like many of them were 'under the hood' bugs that you may not have even noticed in the first place. Also, we ended up with some new bugs in their place.
My biggest disappointment is all the restrictions they're operating under. When I think of an Enhanced Edition, especially for a game that has been marred by time constraints (ESPECIALLY ToB or the last 1/3 of SoA), is having all it's originally planned content implemented....but that's one of the things they're explicitly NOT allowed to do. Which actually makes the entire venture a massive waste of time imo. And of course, leaving in the glaringly bad class/kit/spell/ability implementations.
Comments
I didn't say that if IWD2 did it, BG:EE should do it. I believe that doing this would be a good idea (do you honestly prefer BG:EE inteface as it is and see no room for improvement?) I say that if IWD2 could do it than it was possible for BG:EE too. I used this example anticipating the argument you used in other place "it's too difficult, it wasn't their code". IWD series was done by a different team too.
I am happy that Overhaul are patching the game, that they added kits in a patch etc. I never said that they are terrible people who do not deserve any credit. I just think they had potential to do more with the game then what they did and hope they will.
I think everyone is focusing way to much on the example of IWD2 that the OP made. It is simply a request for interface enhancements in a game titled "Enhanced Edition." Who cares where the code comes from at all? Just offer enhancements if you are going to call it by the name.
And the game being broken on Intel graphics and then being told that they didn't have test beds with Intel graphics was less than stellar. That is a large percentage of the install base in existence. Especially for an older game with no expectation of discreet graphics requirements.
None of this makes for a wasted opportunity. I think it is just the opposite. I'm excited about the future of the community and hope these versions rekindle the modding magic! I'll be buying BG2:EE as soon as it appears in playable form or they offer a compelling preorder inducement. A forum badge doesn't count.
I'm speshul.
A rather lengthy list of bugs for AoE2 HD was compiled by a Steam user.
BG:EE certainly does have its bugs, there's no denying that, but I don't think it is fair to talk about comparisons and then not name any - so there's the only comparison that I can think of right now.
I am of a mind to point out Neverwinter Nights2 and how it was at launch. Even today it is not without it's bugs a plenty. And look at how large that team was. Community modders have fixed quite a lot of the issues it is true, not to mention all of the love that Tony K and Kaedrin did on the AI and interfaces. Still, not all of the issues have been resolved.
At the end of the day, it is fine that the OP is disappointed with BG:EE. And if they have legitimate expectations and complaints, this is the place to post them. I think the problem is in their ability to communicate effectively what they see as the problem. As is, they are posting what might be seen in some eyes as flame bait. Best to rephrase and actually re-think such that they can get some momentum behind them instead of what they have gotten thus far.
Ok, you still ignore the gist of what I am trying to say. So the team was too small, they didn't have enough time and money - that is why I consider it to be a wasted opportunity, I regret the EE version was not done by somebody who had the time, money and manpower, because there will be no other chance of EE. I gave you a comparison to a default BG1, which works better than the BG:EE a year after its release, you ignore the point brought by @Treyolen, I have an Intel GPU and after a year I cannot play BG:EE in fullscreen, no such problems with BG1. Anyhow, other big games that I remember that have a small number of bugs - Homm3, Massive Assault, Icewind Dale, Wizardy 8, Divine Divinity. Sure there are games that are more buggy - e.g. TOEE. The only thing that I am claiming is that it is not impossible to create a game without a huge number of bugs? I'd just wish for BGEE to be better in this respect than vanilla BG. Is this really so demanding and unreasonable? And yes, I do appreciate the patches, the patch that we are waiting for seems to solve (maybe) most of the rendering problems, but should they have existed in the first place? Do you really feel the justification "we didn't test on Intel" is acceptable? And let's bear in mind we are not taking about a years old problem that they didn't solve but a completely new issue they have introduced.
Do you think that in the age of Kickstarter anyone else would pick up the glove and touch this decade and a half old game(taking into account that you have go through hell with Atari,EA and Hasbro)??? sorry to shutter your dream, but no one else would!
I said before, if you have legitimate complaints about the game, let's hear them.
Are there games out there with less bugs? Yes. Are there successful games out there with a whole lot more bugs? Absolutely. Are there fewer bugs now than there were before? Absolutely.
Was the game improved at all over the original? Well, there's zoom. There are kits. There are new NPCs and magic items. There is a whole new section (several in fact).
Is the game a 5 Star game? NO. Do you pay 5 Star prices? No. Did you get the asking price out of the new content? I did.
And there is a legitimate value proposition for an update of an old game when the original is still being sold for about half of the cost on a well established game service. I'm completely willing to take the long view and assume that many features will continue to be added and back ported from future releases. But that doesn't mean that as of now the "enhancements" aren't less than expected. I disagree with @Borsook on his overall assessment. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't raise some valid points.
I understand all of the hurdles the team is facing. But as a consumer I really don't care. I just want a good product at a good price. If the problems are such that they can't deliver then this isn't a project that should continue. I happen to have faith that this is a worthwhile endeavor and I'm very pleased with the results so far. But I don't want to hear about the pain, just show me the baby.
There are, to my knowledge 2 things EE gave us on PC platform that were not possible to mod into BG2:
-zoom
-smother loading.
Both are nice but are they worth 20 dollars? You seem to say that this is a small amount, I do not remember ever buying a game for more, I know there are games priced higher, but there are plenty of new games in this price range. Considering most of the game existed before we may consider this pricing as fair but cheap? I don't think so. For me personally it would raise the game's worth considerably if it would offer at least an easy experience, as it is it doesn't I get less bugs running Tutu. Is that not a legitimate complaint?
On the whole, the concept of an Enhanced Edition, HD or whatever you want to call it is problematic. For those people who already own the games in question, there's not much point in buying a game that you already have, unless you want it for a different platform. Otherwise, there should be literally tons of new content, complete engine overhaul, all bugfixes imaginable or a golden calf. And as for people who haven't played them, they may buy the game from GoG or even order it from a brick & mortar store (it's true!!!) for a very cheap price, and thanks to the internet, they know exactly what they're getting.
To use your example: if your kid comes home with all 5's (out of 10) on his report card on a class average of 7, there might indeed be an issue with your kid. But if it is 5's all around, I would be inclined to think there is something wrong with the teacher/class/school itself.
Which is still relativism. Yes, you apparently can't get nearly bug-free games these days. But just because you can't doesn't mean, that it's inappropiate to voice complaints, critique or whatever you may call it.
@Borsook 's points are still valid, if you look at them from a consumer perspective and not from a die-hard fan of the game/the developer.
Yes, you have to jump through some hoops with mods, but if you know what you're doing you can get the same experience and more for less cash spent.
Which is a point that seems to be glossed over all to often.
I am not sure about the GPU issue, but I would (always assuming you haven't already) post on the issues forum on this. If the developers aren't working on this, I'd be surprised.
AS far as the "Meaningful changes to the UI" this is highly subjective. You may feel that there are necessary changes, but your "Necessary" is someone else's nice to have and yet someone else's please don't do. If you want to not like the game because of this, understand this isn't because Overhaul failed anyone but you.
As far as the pathfinding is concerned, I think we covered this. They tried to fix it and it was so involved in the base code as to be beyond the scope of what they intended. Let me ask you though, is IWD still having problems with path-finding? I know that Neverwinter Nights 2 still suffers from it. So could this be beyond fixing?
And all of the bug fixes? What about kits? NPCs? What about new areas such as the arena? What about new areas related to the new NPCs? What about new magic items? These are all additional to the things you listed. You personally may not enjoy them and may not find them a value add. You are entitled to that opinion, but your statements seem to want to ignore that these things exist.
Since I am getting tired of repeating the same argument all over again let me summarise. This is still a great game, but it had potential to be so much better, and the way it was made it offers very little over what could have been achieved with Tutu/BGT. While most technical bugs are registered and probably will be fixed in the new patch which is supposed to the have the new rendering engine, it is still not out so we don't really know and can't be sure. Chances are the technical complaints will finally be gone over a year after it's publication. Is that terrible? Maybe not. Could have it been better? Wasn't there an opportunity for a better release? I believe yes. And that's all from me on the topic
*I realize that there are many more bugfixes in BG:EE than in the Fixpack (I believe this is a result of being able to fix previously hard-coded bugs). But it seems like many of them were 'under the hood' bugs that you may not have even noticed in the first place. Also, we ended up with some new bugs in their place.