@ZaknafeinBaenre - I will take that "Almost" complement and leave it at that. We differ on quite a lot of positions, but this is not the forum (pun intended) for a personal sparring match. we disagree as to what kind of a product IWD:EE could be. Fair enough. Since it is a hypothetical product neither one of us need be wrong.
And here we are back to things being a matter of personal taste. I find it more exciting when a group of common adventurers end up in a circumstance wherein they are pushed to rise to the top, compared to the terribly overdone "because of your bloodline, you are special and destined to be great yada yada."
Even with the first trope you describe, you still end up with a scenario where those common adventurers are choosing to pursue the path ahead of them, for whatever personal reason motivates them. No such stakes exist in the IWD games, not even in the broadest sense, because your party members are explicitly foreign to the region. So you can't even play it as "local villagers take a stand against an enemy that threatens their home".
@shawne - I disagree. There is a draw. Many adventurers become adventurers because they like to explore, to find out what's going on, to uncover secrets. They get embroiled in a plot and they have to resolve it, not because they got roped in by some trick of fate or lineage, but merely because they got involved. Nothing wrong with that as a hook to get the players involved.
Many, MANY of the old modules that came out had nothing more than that hook. You just happened to be there and looking for stuff to explore. Players don't need to be conscripted into the scenario to be interested in it's resolution.
And that was the reason why IWD spoke to a different class of player. We wanted our own characters, not some artificial construct that ultimately became the writer's character by virtue of them hijacking your lineage half way through the adventure.
Nailed it. I was taught there are 7 fundamental fallacies, and the Straw-Man fallacy was most certainly on the list. Until you mentioned it, I had forgotten the official name. Using the fallacies in debate without being caught can win you an argument you had no business winning. Our politicians do it to us on a daily basis and most of my country, at least, are none the wiser.
I never "clearly stated" that the lack of romances or playable NPC's make IWD inferior. I only said it makes it un-enhanceable. I stand by that, and I have YET to see any good reasoning that refutes it. All I see here is a bunch of "IWD is NOT a bad game!!" comments, which are completely irrelevant
Ah ? Did I miss something ? In Heart of Winter and Trials of the Luremaster is there any playable NPC ? so-called romance ? Those are two excellent (and official) enhancements of an "un-enhanceable" game.
Don't get me wrong. I've played IWD and IWD2, and I enjoyed them both... Spyder please don't misquote me. Nowhere will you see me say I didn't like the game, nor did I ever call it broken.
Quite difficult to follow you... You may have a point. However it does not easily emerge from that discussion.
@the_spyder: The difference is that in tabletop modules, you have more than one player - and, therefore, the game will still contain a combination of different personalities, perspectives and development. IWD requires you to roleplay all party members simultaneously, without providing any kind of structure to accommodate different choices. You literally can't create meaningful distinctions between the characters you control, because you're never given the opportunity to perform any of it.
As for whether players need to be conscripted into a scenario: that's simply not true even within the limited scope of video game D&D campaigns. Look at the reactions on this very forum towards, say, "Storm of Zehir" versus "Planescape: Torment", or "Shadows of Undrentide" to "Darkness Over Daggerford". You will inevitably encounter players who quit the scenario because they weren't engaged enough to see it through.
You can't add NPC's to Icewind Dale because to do so, officially, would fundamentally change the game, and the story. The story is a band of mercenaries, and the game allows you to make new characters as you go along. I can't see them tampering with the base of the game to such an extent. It wouldn't be an enhancement, it'd be a complete overhaul
@shawne - I do provide distinction between the characters, in my own mind. I imagine their differences and how each character reacts or interacts. So it 'Can' be done.
As for the second argument, 'Individual' players decided that they needed a hook. You can't say "Player X needed a hook so ALL players need one." it doesn't work that way.
@zaknafeinBaenre - Again we disagree, unless you threw the word "Officially" as some kind of backdoor to say that it wasn't in the official release??? But then the rest of that sentence makes no sense.
the addition of an NPC, or even several, doesn't change the fundamental formula of "Mercs come to town and get embroiled in this overarching plot". It merely means that those Mercs get some additional local help. In fact, you encounter a number of NPCs throughout the game that "Help" the Mercs. They just don't actually camp out with the group and travel with them for extended periods of time. So it wouldn't fundamentally change either the story or the game itself as it already happens in one form or another.
If you haven't already, check out ToEE. It's the same formula wherein a band of adventurers come to town (for various superficially plot driven reasons) and set about exploring the town and the troubles. There are a number of "hirable" NPCs which will join the group should you want them. But the structure of the game does not require that you hire anyone and is still fundamentally that the Mercs (or adventurers) solve the adventure alone. IWD could do the same thing without fundamentally changing anything. The whole "You create a group who explores the adventure" remains 100% intact. You just have some ADDITIONAL companions, should you choose.
Secondly, IWD isn't really about a band of mercenaries. Its about a band of murder hobos adventurers, that explore stuff, and never ever get paid for it. Sure, they get rewards from ghosts, but they never get paid in gold. Also, there's a couple of side quests in IWD where you can demand getting paid in gold, but that kind of makes you look like a douche rather than a 'mercenary'. IWD2 is the tale of a band of mercenaries coming to save the day.
Thirdly, I think @kulyok did a wonderful job making five murder hobos adventurous NPCs for IWD. Of course, they're optional, and you can select them via import. If Beamdog were to add NPCs to IWD, then I would want them to do it how @kulyok did with the original IWD.
Then there's the whole IWD-in-BG2 thing.
Fact of the matter is, IWD has been tinkered with several times since it came out, and with each little tinker that has been done, it only seems to get better, and better.
And that was the reason why IWD spoke to a different class of player. We wanted our own characters, not some artificial construct that ultimately became the writer's character by virtue of them hijacking your lineage half way through the adventure.
Ahh wow, you put my feelings ... one of my frustrations with Baldur's Gate, into beautiful words. Thanks @the_spyder.
You can't add NPC's to Icewind Dale because to do so, officially, would fundamentally change the game, and the story. The story is a band of mercenaries, and the game allows you to make new characters as you go along. I can't see them tampering with the base of the game to such an extent. It wouldn't be an enhancement, it'd be a complete overhaul
Oh they could, what says that they just plain can't? That said, I would not like to see NPCs added to Icewind Dale. As I stated before, that would be Overhaul totally missing the point of IWD. If they enhanced the game like they did with the BG series, then focused on making a bunch of new areas, however ... that would be amazing.
Frankly I'm pretty miffed that some 95% of the new content was tied to NPCs. Incredibly disappointing. Hopefully they wouldn't pull that shit with an IWD:EE.
I think Baldur's Gate should be Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale should be Icewind Dale. Making IWD more like BG is just... not what I want.
I actually like IWD, and I'm pretty sure a big part of is that I don't have the same restartitis with it as I do with BG. I think having the easy choice of choosing your entire party helps. I like the fact that I can switch things up by changing games for a bit. Also the music is AMAZING and the areas are better designed than the BG Trilogy. I agree with @Quartz that it was the most immersive game I've played because of those type of things. I honestly think it was the "best looking" game I've ever played.
Baldur's Gate was a great story, IWD was a great adventure. Of course I love BG more (by quite a margin) but that doesn't take anything away from IWD. If they make an IWD:EE I really hope they respect the uniqueness of the game and not try to make it into Junior's Gate.
Edit: Totally forgot the best parts of IWD... Druids and Bards are not only playable characters, but actually pretty damn powerful. I wish the enhancement of BG actually added the spells that druids and clerics get from IWD, as well as the variety of bard songs and abilities. That would have been an awesome addition.
PS: @Quartz the fact that you haven't played Heart of Winter is absolutely criminal. You need to do it... its awesome. Trials of the Luremaster added some cool items too.
IWDII was kind of lackluster compared to the first game in my opinion. They made it too complicated and by "improving" the graphics they destroyed the immersion. I beat it once but I have trouble replaying it, unlike the first game.
@booinyoureyes Bards are crazy good in Icewind Dale. I have a hard time playing without one in a party. I rolled a 97 point Bard in IWD a while back too O_o; So of course 18/18/18/18/7/18 lol :P
I've been replaying Icewind Dale recently -- I actually had a save that I played with for some time like half a year ago and got all the way to Wyrm's Tooth. Finally picking up where I left off, and fondly remembering how much I actually like my party -- their character and all. Not typical for me when it comes to these Infinity Engine games to be entirely honest. So, I'll eventually get to Heart of Winter.
Only thing that bugs me is that for years I played IWD on Mac ... Version 1.0. So like, Xyunemei was SUPER FREAKING TOUGH among a few other things, and the models were BG1 models which are better just sayin'. Other than that, 'tis good times!
And I haven't been paying any mind to Planescape, ugh, I got like five hours in and have just sorta been doing other things, I guess. It hasn't grabbed me yet but then I don't necessarily expect a RPG to grab me that early. That certainly wasn't my experience with Legend of Dragoon, which I would argue is possibly my favorite RPG ... bah. Overall I like the gameplay of Baldur's Gate better, but Legend of Dragoon's setting and characters are magical to me. Anyway that's off-topic.
I agree with @lordkin it'd be interesting to see Beamdog/Overhaul make their own game or some such. Though their characters will likely all be bad bits of fan fiction, maybe they'd be more endearing inside their own setting
I like IWD a lot. For me, playing IWD allows me to remember what it was like to sit around a table with 7 of my best friends and play. Most of the characters I normally use are modeled in some way off of the characters that they played. I can pretend that we are all doing another late night session in Eric's basement, delving into the depths of whatever dungeon Greg had created for us that evening. It's a MUCH different experience for me than BG and I'm glad of that. I'm not saying "better" than BG, but absolutely "Different" and good in its' own right.
I think that there are huge possibilities in any kind of EE for IWD. The entire scope of the game could be expanded with new areas and new quests. With the work already done for BG2:EE, a lot of the bugs could be easily fixed and new content such as classes could be quite easily integrated. New Voice sets. New Character pics. heck, even new weapons and items. More is absolutely better.
I personally wouldn't add NPCs to the mix, but I could see it being done if the DEVs put their minds to it. I hardly think it is necessary for them to do so, but I don't think it in any way breaks the game, so long as they were "in addition" to your already core party which the player created.
And what is more, the structure of IWD is such that I could see it easily lending itself to further or even different story lines in ways that BG simply can't. BG, for as WONDERFUL as it is, is really tied to the Bhaalspawn story, which is pretty much done. Sure there are ways that it could be continued (in spirit or in actuality), but it presents somewhat of a limited landscape because of that element. With IWD, not so much. In fact, there is a whole world of possibilities simply because you don't need to tie the adventure to any given core central theme. It's more like the modules that I grew up on. Anything is possible.
And just for the record, I wasn't attempting to use a straw-man argument earlier. I was merely pointing out that the somewhat limited and narrow views presented didn't consider all of the possibilities.
I would definitely support any IWD:EE project. And given that Overhaul did a quite good job (personal opinion) at BG:EE, and their focus does seem to be to enhance existing products, i think it is a perfect fit with a proven audience. If, on the other hand, they decided to branch out into their own thing? I'd absolutely give it a favorable eye. I think they've proven themselves at least that far.
Yeah. Pretty much the reason I play IWD is that I want a break from BG (I don't really play other games). I can have a lot of head canon and make my own party.
The fact that it is a different experience than BG is half the draw. To take that away would defeat the purpose.
I would love a IWDEE like this: No joinable NPCs Wide screen resolution, bug fixing, general IU enhancing as Beamdog have become quite adopt at with the work on BG. Dual wielding Keep the IWD spellbook/ground rules Add a few more quests and areas with interesting characters Add some more classes
I am unsure, because things are seldom that simple, but there is hope that this work would be comparatively easier on the foundation of all the work Beamdog has done on BG1/2. So the project would perhaps not be as huge as the work with BG1/2 EE Anyway, it seems quite doable, maybe another stepping stone on the way to making an original game? Also, it would be a shame to not put into further use all the experience Beamdog has acquired with tinkering on the infinity engine.
I agree one hundred percent with the penguin @Aristillius and I think more quests is the best way to put your stamp on the game without fundamentally transforming it.
Agreed that the landscape is totally fertile with possibilities. The area is pretty sparsely populated with maps (as I recall) and there is a lot of filling in that could happen. Throw in a few extra quests, add a few character classes, shore up the code. Hey, presto. it would be a total win. At least I'd buy it.
Have the original art assets for IWD been lost as well? If not, a major graphical upgrade would be awesome, so long as it kept a similar style, and wasn't the primary focus of the enhancement project
@jackjack I dunno. I may be alone on this, but I actually prefer the look of IWD over IWDII, which supposedly had "better" graphics. I think it would have to be carefully done. I'm sure allowing for dual-wielding or adding monk classes would have to require some sort of upgraded graphics anyway.
@booinyoureyes You're definitely not alone. To me, IWD looked and still looks much better than its sequel. Any graphical upgrade would need to be carefully tailored to match the art style of the original, in my opinion.
An EE of IWD would be great if they simply implement the improvements to the engine, and maybe fix a few critical bugs, and that's it.
Personally, I don't welcome any of the new content in BG1EE and BG2EE (the Black Pits is okay though), nor do I care for most of the nanny-fixes (a la Baldurdash, Fixpack, Dudleyville). Not that the new content is bad (it's actually pretty good), it's just that now I feel like I'm having to play the game with someone's un-installable mod pre-loaded.
I hope if they make an IWDEE (and I want them to), they leave the content of the game alone.
Comments
All's fair and no foul, right?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Many, MANY of the old modules that came out had nothing more than that hook. You just happened to be there and looking for stuff to explore. Players don't need to be conscripted into the scenario to be interested in it's resolution.
And that was the reason why IWD spoke to a different class of player. We wanted our own characters, not some artificial construct that ultimately became the writer's character by virtue of them hijacking your lineage half way through the adventure.
Those are two excellent (and official) enhancements of an "un-enhanceable" game. Quite difficult to follow you...
You may have a point. However it does not easily emerge from that discussion.
As for whether players need to be conscripted into a scenario: that's simply not true even within the limited scope of video game D&D campaigns. Look at the reactions on this very forum towards, say, "Storm of Zehir" versus "Planescape: Torment", or "Shadows of Undrentide" to "Darkness Over Daggerford". You will inevitably encounter players who quit the scenario because they weren't engaged enough to see it through.
As for the second argument, 'Individual' players decided that they needed a hook. You can't say "Player X needed a hook so ALL players need one." it doesn't work that way.
the addition of an NPC, or even several, doesn't change the fundamental formula of "Mercs come to town and get embroiled in this overarching plot". It merely means that those Mercs get some additional local help. In fact, you encounter a number of NPCs throughout the game that "Help" the Mercs. They just don't actually camp out with the group and travel with them for extended periods of time. So it wouldn't fundamentally change either the story or the game itself as it already happens in one form or another.
If you haven't already, check out ToEE. It's the same formula wherein a band of adventurers come to town (for various superficially plot driven reasons) and set about exploring the town and the troubles. There are a number of "hirable" NPCs which will join the group should you want them. But the structure of the game does not require that you hire anyone and is still fundamentally that the Mercs (or adventurers) solve the adventure alone. IWD could do the same thing without fundamentally changing anything. The whole "You create a group who explores the adventure" remains 100% intact. You just have some ADDITIONAL companions, should you choose.
Secondly, IWD isn't really about a band of mercenaries. Its about a band of murder hobos adventurers, that explore stuff, and never ever get paid for it. Sure, they get rewards from ghosts, but they never get paid in gold. Also, there's a couple of side quests in IWD where you can demand getting paid in gold, but that kind of makes you look like a douche rather than a 'mercenary'.
IWD2 is the tale of a band of mercenaries coming to save the day.
Thirdly, I think @kulyok did a wonderful job making five murder hobos adventurous NPCs for IWD. Of course, they're optional, and you can select them via import. If Beamdog were to add NPCs to IWD, then I would want them to do it how @kulyok did with the original IWD.
Then there's the whole IWD-in-BG2 thing.
Fact of the matter is, IWD has been tinkered with several times since it came out, and with each little tinker that has been done, it only seems to get better, and better.
Frankly I'm pretty miffed that some 95% of the new content was tied to NPCs. Incredibly disappointing. Hopefully they wouldn't pull that shit with an IWD:EE.
I think Baldur's Gate should be Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale should be Icewind Dale. Making IWD more like BG is just... not what I want.
I actually like IWD, and I'm pretty sure a big part of is that I don't have the same restartitis with it as I do with BG. I think having the easy choice of choosing your entire party helps. I like the fact that I can switch things up by changing games for a bit. Also the music is AMAZING and the areas are better designed than the BG Trilogy. I agree with @Quartz that it was the most immersive game I've played because of those type of things. I honestly think it was the "best looking" game I've ever played.
Baldur's Gate was a great story, IWD was a great adventure. Of course I love BG more (by quite a margin) but that doesn't take anything away from IWD. If they make an IWD:EE I really hope they respect the uniqueness of the game and not try to make it into Junior's Gate.
Edit: Totally forgot the best parts of IWD... Druids and Bards are not only playable characters, but actually pretty damn powerful. I wish the enhancement of BG actually added the spells that druids and clerics get from IWD, as well as the variety of bard songs and abilities. That would have been an awesome addition.
IWDII was kind of lackluster compared to the first game in my opinion. They made it too complicated and by "improving" the graphics they destroyed the immersion. I beat it once but I have trouble replaying it, unlike the first game.
I've been replaying Icewind Dale recently -- I actually had a save that I played with for some time like half a year ago and got all the way to Wyrm's Tooth. Finally picking up where I left off, and fondly remembering how much I actually like my party -- their character and all. Not typical for me when it comes to these Infinity Engine games to be entirely honest. So, I'll eventually get to Heart of Winter.
Only thing that bugs me is that for years I played IWD on Mac ... Version 1.0. So like, Xyunemei was SUPER FREAKING TOUGH among a few other things, and the models were BG1 models which are better just sayin'. Other than that, 'tis good times!
And I haven't been paying any mind to Planescape, ugh, I got like five hours in and have just sorta been doing other things, I guess. It hasn't grabbed me yet but then I don't necessarily expect a RPG to grab me that early. That certainly wasn't my experience with Legend of Dragoon, which I would argue is possibly my favorite RPG ... bah. Overall I like the gameplay of Baldur's Gate better, but Legend of Dragoon's setting and characters are magical to me. Anyway that's off-topic.
I agree with @lordkin it'd be interesting to see Beamdog/Overhaul make their own game or some such. Though their characters will likely all be bad bits of fan fiction, maybe they'd be more endearing inside their own setting
I think that there are huge possibilities in any kind of EE for IWD. The entire scope of the game could be expanded with new areas and new quests. With the work already done for BG2:EE, a lot of the bugs could be easily fixed and new content such as classes could be quite easily integrated. New Voice sets. New Character pics. heck, even new weapons and items. More is absolutely better.
I personally wouldn't add NPCs to the mix, but I could see it being done if the DEVs put their minds to it. I hardly think it is necessary for them to do so, but I don't think it in any way breaks the game, so long as they were "in addition" to your already core party which the player created.
And what is more, the structure of IWD is such that I could see it easily lending itself to further or even different story lines in ways that BG simply can't. BG, for as WONDERFUL as it is, is really tied to the Bhaalspawn story, which is pretty much done. Sure there are ways that it could be continued (in spirit or in actuality), but it presents somewhat of a limited landscape because of that element. With IWD, not so much. In fact, there is a whole world of possibilities simply because you don't need to tie the adventure to any given core central theme. It's more like the modules that I grew up on. Anything is possible.
And just for the record, I wasn't attempting to use a straw-man argument earlier. I was merely pointing out that the somewhat limited and narrow views presented didn't consider all of the possibilities.
I would definitely support any IWD:EE project. And given that Overhaul did a quite good job (personal opinion) at BG:EE, and their focus does seem to be to enhance existing products, i think it is a perfect fit with a proven audience. If, on the other hand, they decided to branch out into their own thing? I'd absolutely give it a favorable eye. I think they've proven themselves at least that far.
The fact that it is a different experience than BG is half the draw. To take that away would defeat the purpose.
No joinable NPCs
Wide screen resolution, bug fixing, general IU enhancing as Beamdog have become quite adopt at with the work on BG.
Dual wielding
Keep the IWD spellbook/ground rules
Add a few more quests and areas with interesting characters
Add some more classes
I am unsure, because things are seldom that simple, but there is hope that this work would be comparatively easier on the foundation of all the work Beamdog has done on BG1/2. So the project would perhaps not be as huge as the work with BG1/2 EE
Anyway, it seems quite doable, maybe another stepping stone on the way to making an original game? Also, it would be a shame to not put into further use all the experience Beamdog has acquired with tinkering on the infinity engine.
You're definitely not alone. To me, IWD looked and still looks much better than its sequel. Any graphical upgrade would need to be carefully tailored to match the art style of the original, in my opinion.
Personally, I don't welcome any of the new content in BG1EE and BG2EE (the Black Pits is okay though), nor do I care for most of the nanny-fixes (a la Baldurdash, Fixpack, Dudleyville). Not that the new content is bad (it's actually pretty good), it's just that now I feel like I'm having to play the game with someone's un-installable mod pre-loaded.
I hope if they make an IWDEE (and I want them to), they leave the content of the game alone.