I can stand back appreciate IWD for what it is to other people; like others have mentioned, it is unfair to compare BG and IWD. The two were never meant to be bedmates.
That being said, it is nearly impossible not to compare the two. There are the obvious visual similarities, gameplay carry-overs, the list goes on. After my first play through IWD I couldn't help but compare it to BG and feel disappointed b/c it was so much more shallow and linear than BG, in my opinion. At the time, I didn't realize that IWD was not striving to be a BG clone. However, even after realizing this, I still find it impossible to erase that initial disappointment from years ago and the feeling of "this game is just too flat and I'm not invested in its story," from my brain. For that reason, I would most likely not purchase an IWD EE. I would rather see Planescape EE or something else.
@Shawne You seem to be easily offended, which is a shame because I'm not even trying to be offensive. In Baldur's Gate the only interactions I've seen are ones which don't stop gameplay ("Thy decency is refreshing, so many we meet are lacking").
I have no interest in Storytelling 101. Your self righteous concepts on what makes a story a story from your fifty page a day RP forums don't apply to video games. Why will interparty banter make IWD's story any better? The story is already articulated in everyway possible, even the Vale of Shadows and Severed Hand are stories IN themselves, not to mention the twist with Poquelin at the end. The story of it comes from the people OUTSIDE your party, the party itself is only a way to progress.
An epic story doesn't need to have epic characters, not in a video game like this. It IS a video game after all, the only purpose for your party is to overcome the fights, which are a major part of the game experience. It supplements the story, it does not take away from the story like in Diablo, which has NO story and is only playable if you have OCD or some similar clicking problem.
If you want to role play, then IWD is not your game. But don't spit on the story just because you have this flawed idea that NPC interactions will make the game playable, because the story will be just as good as it was before, but with some badly written characters. You can't just stick your nose up at everything you think is beneath you.
I would like to see IcewindDale remade, even tho the story & characters are very boring. More excitement could be added to the game if recruitable party members with special abilities were added. If there were character specific story dialog the game might feel less hollow.
@Shawne You seem to be easily offended, which is a shame because I'm not even trying to be offensive.
Offensive, no. Condescending, yes, with your repeated implications that people just don't "get" IWD and your insistence on misrepresenting the argument.
In Baldur's Gate the only interactions I've seen are ones which don't stop gameplay ("Thy decency is refreshing, so many we meet are lacking").
So? The interactions are still part of the game, unless your complaint is specifically about dialogue that pauses gameplay. Which... have you never heard of cutscenes? This would be the circa 2000 version of that.
I have no interest in Storytelling 101. Your self righteous concepts on what makes a story a story from your fifty page a day RP forums don't apply to video games.
So much wrong with this sentence I don't even know where to start. But let's give it a try anyway.
Storytelling doesn't apply to video games? Really? So I just imagined Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, Arcanum, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Knights of the Old Republic, Silent Hill and almost every other game that's come out in the past twenty years?
There's such a thing as basic story requirements - that's not an invention of mine, it's something that holds true in any medium. Stories need to be set in a specific time and place, they need a plot, and yes, they need characters. You can make the argument that some games don't tell stories, fair enough, but there's Pac-Man and there's Planescape Torment, and you'd do well not to lump the two together.
Why will interparty banter make IWD's story any better? The story is already articulated in everyway possible, even the Vale of Shadows and Severed Hand are stories IN themselves, not to mention the twist with Poquelin at the end. The story of it comes from the people OUTSIDE your party, the party itself is only a way to progress.
And that's precisely where the criticism is coming from. The party is comprised of mechanical ciphers who have no stake in the plot, no reaction to anything that happens, and no direct involvement in the story events beyond their resolution of those events. It's basically a turn-based Diablo, and if it existed in a vacuum people might be content to leave it at that. But it doesn't, because whatever group you assign IWD to - Faerun games, Black Isle games, D&D-based games - IWD is the one that sticks out for precisely this reason.
If you want to role play, then IWD is not your game. But don't spit on the story just because you have this flawed idea that NPC interactions will make the game playable, because the story will be just as good as it was before, but with some badly written characters. You can't just stick your nose up at everything you think is beneath you.
Now who's easily offended? As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing functionally wrong with IWD's plot, that's not what people are complaining about. That you're so mortally wounded and flailing about at the suggestion of adding a basic storytelling component to a game that's weaker for the lack of it speaks more to your issues than mine.
To sum up: you don't see the value of characterization in video games? As I've said, more power to you. I think IWD would benefit from it, and I'd enjoy an EE version more for having it.
@shawne, to add an example to your comments, lemme just say that you can in the middle of the game, simply delete your entire party and create another one, and believe me when i say that, besides the increased difficult, there will be no change on the game at all.
When you main char isn't a main char, the player can't dive deep in the history.
It's like to see the Hulks movies, the first one used one actor, the second movie used another, and in the avengers, they choose a third actor for Hulk.
@kamuizin: Well said, though to refine your point, it's like watching the Hulk movies if every Hulk were a different character - Bruce Banner, Ben Banner, Betty Crocker, doesn't matter because they're all the Hulk and they all smash.
And that's precisely where the criticism is coming from. The party is comprised of mechanical ciphers who have no stake in the plot, no reaction to anything that happens, and no direct involvement in the story events beyond their resolution of those events. It's basically a turn-based Diablo, and if it existed in a vacuum people might be content to leave it at that.
No, it's not turn based Diablo. It's more like a direct port straight from a PnP Module. Not only that but it’s more applicable to be a multiplayer game than Baldur's Gate is.
But it doesn't, because whatever group you assign IWD to - Faerun games, Black Isle games, D&D-based games - IWD is the one that sticks out for precisely this reason.
Wait, I have some D&D and\or Forgotten Realms games That play like this.
Pool of Radiance Curse of the Azure Bonds Secret of the Silver Blades Pools of Darkness Gateway to the Savage Frontier Treasures of the Savage Frontier Champions of Krynn Death Knights of Krynn The Dark Queen of Krynn
@shawne Again, I return to 'the story comes from outside your party'. If IWD does not have a CHARNAME, because it isn't about YOU. Baldur's Gate is about you, because you have been charged by God, with a sacred quest.
I'm happy there are no party interactions, because where you have them, you have people you hate. Then you have people you don't use even if you need their skills. IWD lets you build a party unbiased by your own particular taste in personalities, where you can do a little customizing of them through appearence, soundset and name. You have your characters, they just don't talk. I like that.
IWD is not turn based Diablo, because Diablo is just bad. The only thing Diablo has going for it is the atmosphere, which they captured very well (in the first one anyway). That's the only reason I have Diablo, because somebody really talented (just like the people who made assets for BG and IWD) made it have a FEEL to it.
IWD is solid, it has a feel, a story and the only thing it lacks is a 'personal' relationship between party members. But that part of it is irrelevant, when you actually play the game and enjoy the story. Because like I said, IWD isn't about you or your party members, it's about everybody else.
The Hulk example isn't a very good one, because that is a story about a SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE, IWD is not about any one group of people, because that group is only there to progress in fights.
TORMET - STORY BG - BALANCE STORY/GAMEPLAY IWD - GAMEPLAY
Thats the way I look at the 3 main CRPG's that I love and for diffirent reasons. But that is not to say I didn't enjoy combat in Torment or find the story engaging in IWD. I think people just expect a certain type of game especially from IWD because it appeared the same flavour as BG. Haters gonna hate I'm still enjoying the hell out of it.
@spacejaws Isn't a question of hate, i hate NWN, i don't lost my time speaking about it anyway. I speak about IWD exactly cos i see a lost potential there, a huge potential wasted, and why some people rejoice in that i just can't understand.
But for each person a way of think, i'm not here to convince anyone to agree with me (however i will reply in kind if people try to force their opinion in me), i'm here to answer this thread.
Does anyone NOT want an IWD EE? Yes, i'm one of those ones.
If i elaborate the question and explain why:
-Lack of interaction from the NPCs with each other and non joinable NPCs (what is funny to say cos NPC means non playable character ... but whatever...). -Lack of main char. -Lack of involvement of the story (pretty much in reason of the death aura that NPCs in this game spread.
IWD has a history, and a very coherent one at least (i finshed the game once). The problem isn't the lack of history but lack of incentive to replay (as any game with a nice coherent history allow us to enjoy it at least once).
Now that i know the history i simply don't have a reason to play IWD again, why would i do it? What different plot can i see there? There is any important choice that split the game somewhere so i must replay the game to see it? No, there's not.
So to end, i would not support IWD EE remake in the same way the old game was done, be happy anyone who want to support it, but i know i'm not alone in this.
However, if they want to bring life to IWD, to create NPCs and give them proper banters, something that make me feel alive in the game, part of something greater and not just a mechanical hack and slash... This kind of IceWind Dale i would support.
I'm happy there are no party interactions, because where you have them, you have people you hate. Then you have people you don't use even if you need their skills.
Just goes to underline how differently people view games. The way I see it, the personalities are more important than the stats and the skillsets. This means I regularly end up with suboptimal parties from a min/max point of view, but that's the charm of an RPG, and one of the things that separates it from the Diablo comparison you don't seem to like. A powergaming Fellowship of the Ring consisting of three Aragorn, two Legolas and four Gandalf might be theoretically very impressive compared to the actual fellowship, but would similarly break the story. Heck, with 4 Gandalfs they could have taken down the balrog without losses, or maybe gone through the pass of Caradhras from the start instead of going to Moria.
IWD is not turn based Diablo, because Diablo is just bad.
They are still similar in terms of design philosophy though. If you take away character significance and let the plot take a backseat to fighting, looting and gaining levels, you are giving BG the Diablo treatment.. and you end up with something similar to IWD. The Diablo 3 design team even explicitly stated that they tried not to include any really lengthy cutscenes or frequent extensive dialogues as they didn't want to remove the player from the flow of action.. exactly the way you want it to be.
The Hulk example isn't a very good one, because that is a story about a SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE, IWD is not about any one group of people, because that group is only there to progress in fights.
@Shawne You seem to be easily offended, which is a shame because I'm not even trying to be offensive.
Offensive, no. Condescending, yes, with your repeated implications that people just don't "get" IWD and your insistence on misrepresenting the argument.
In Baldur's Gate the only interactions I've seen are ones which don't stop gameplay ("Thy decency is refreshing, so many we meet are lacking").
So? The interactions are still part of the game, unless your complaint is specifically about dialogue that pauses gameplay. Which... have you never heard of cutscenes? This would be the circa 2000 version of that.
I have no interest in Storytelling 101. Your self righteous concepts on what makes a story a story from your fifty page a day RP forums don't apply to video games.
So much wrong with this sentence I don't even know where to start. But let's give it a try anyway.
Storytelling doesn't apply to video games? Really? So I just imagined Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, Arcanum, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Knights of the Old Republic, Silent Hill and almost every other game that's come out in the past twenty years?
There's such a thing as basic story requirements - that's not an invention of mine, it's something that holds true in any medium. Stories need to be set in a specific time and place, they need a plot, and yes, they need characters. You can make the argument that some games don't tell stories, fair enough, but there's Pac-Man and there's Planescape Torment, and you'd do well not to lump the two together.
Why will interparty banter make IWD's story any better? The story is already articulated in everyway possible, even the Vale of Shadows and Severed Hand are stories IN themselves, not to mention the twist with Poquelin at the end. The story of it comes from the people OUTSIDE your party, the party itself is only a way to progress.
And that's precisely where the criticism is coming from. The party is comprised of mechanical ciphers who have no stake in the plot, no reaction to anything that happens, and no direct involvement in the story events beyond their resolution of those events. It's basically a turn-based Diablo, and if it existed in a vacuum people might be content to leave it at that. But it doesn't, because whatever group you assign IWD to - Faerun games, Black Isle games, D&D-based games - IWD is the one that sticks out for precisely this reason.
If you want to role play, then IWD is not your game. But don't spit on the story just because you have this flawed idea that NPC interactions will make the game playable, because the story will be just as good as it was before, but with some badly written characters. You can't just stick your nose up at everything you think is beneath you.
Now who's easily offended? As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing functionally wrong with IWD's plot, that's not what people are complaining about. That you're so mortally wounded and flailing about at the suggestion of adding a basic storytelling component to a game that's weaker for the lack of it speaks more to your issues than mine.
To sum up: you don't see the value of characterization in video games? As I've said, more power to you. I think IWD would benefit from it, and I'd enjoy an EE version more for having it.
You guys sure take up a lot of words just to say you two disagree about the relative importance of story
@triclops41 You just, metaphorically speaking, picked us both up and dropped us in the naughty corner man. Any psuedo-intelligence or cock strutting we've done is now meaningless. I commend you sir, for your wit and exposing us to harsh realities of our own lack of getting to the point in one sentence.
I've been seeing these arguments since the BIS forums days with BG vs IWD. To be honest, I really don't understand the arguments.I like both games for different reasons.
To sum up: you don't see the value of characterization in video games? As I've said, more power to you. I think IWD would benefit from it, and I'd enjoy an EE version more for having it.
I take it you've never played the Goldbox D&D games?
@Metal_Hurlant: The difference is that the Goldbox games were products of the late '80s and early '90s, and were technologically limited in their capacity for either plot or characterization. IWD came out in 2000, the same year as Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, Final Fantasy IX and, of course, BG2 - all examples of how far storytelling in video games had progressed. Why should IWD be held to a lesser standard?
@Jolanthus: I have little experience with PnP modules, but isn't it accurate to say that they're designed for multiple players, each controlling one character? That's still a scenario where a party is made up of different personalities (in this case, because the players are RPing their games differently) as opposed to a party that is designed and controlled by a single player.
@spacejaws: @kamuizin said it quite well, but just to reiterate, this isn't about hate. As I've said repeatedly, I don't have any problem with IWD's plot - but without the possibility of exploring that plot with different characters, there's no reason to go through the game more than once.
@Ward: You don't like the Diablo comparison? That's too bad, because you keep reinforcing it - everything you attribute to IWD (has a story that isn't about the player, lacks a personal connection to the protagonist, the PC is only there to engage in combat) is true of Diablo as well. I refer you to @Shin's comments - in terms of gameplay, they're functionally identical. If you don't like what that says about IWD, then maybe there's room for improving the game after all.
IWD: PC has conversations. Diablo: PC just listens.
IWD: PC has options of reply Diablo: PC is quiet.
IWD: Has no set protagonist, allowing you to choose somebody to speak and act as leader. Diablo: Shoves a crystal in his head, making you have to invent a new protagonist.
IWD: Real time pausable combat with multiple characters performing individual tasks. Diablo: "Aaahhh, fresh meat." - Click click click click click click click click click click.
IWD: A good story. Diablo: A not so good demon story.
IWD: Developed levels consisting of periodic events, NPCs and elaborate artwork. Diablo: Generic pregenerated dungeons.
IWD: Better Diablo: Worse
IWD: Highly developed D&D class systems Diablo: Skill points
IWD: Plot related twists, Yxunomei's vendette, Everard, drunken fisherman, narrator, ogre. Diablo: Straight-forward game with predetermined set of side-quests.
IWD: Jim Cummings voicing two people you meet almost at the same time, hoping you won't notice much. Diablo: No Jim Cummings to speak of.
Why is it not "up to par"? Just because it's not as plot focussed?
IF that's the only reason you have for saying it's a bad game and not up to par, can't you just try to appreciate the things that are still decent but just aren't for you? It's like saying Planescape is a bad game because it doesn't have much combat.... personal taste...
IWD: Has no set protagonist, allowing you to choose somebody to speak and act as leader. Diablo: Shoves a crystal in his head, making you have to invent a new protagonist.
Uh... what? IWD2 makes you invent new protagonists too. At least Diablo II tells you what actually happened to the previous PC.
IWD: Developed levels consisting of periodic events, NPCs and elaborate artwork. Diablo: Generic pregenerated dungeons.
From a purely performative standpoint, randomized dungeons are better in the sense that, should you replay the game, you're not visiting the exact same maps over and over again.
IWD: Plot related twists, Yxunomei's vendette, Everard, drunken fisherman, narrator, ogre. Diablo: Straight-forward game with predetermined set of side-quests.
Uh-huh. So you've either never played Diablo II or you've forgotten the plot. Not for nothing, but a little fact-checking goes a long way.
@Ward You start with an statement that in diablo you just listen and you answer questions in IWD (what make replies a consequence therefore), so what?
Your entire statement base itself in partial truths (yes i agree they're minor truths) to separete both games. Any game with a deep evaluation will have many similarities and differences, the question is that in terms of personality, IWD much more close to diablo than Baldur's Gate.
The use of minor truths to divert the focus from the main statement will take us nowhere. I like Diablo II for example, that game has the ideal engine and story for it's style, i don't want to be overwhelmed with banter there, neither i care for a deep knowledge of an NPC behavior, that's not the point there.
IWD problem is that they used a D&D system, used the the most near P&P engine at that time, used the same bases as Baldur's Gate (cos the engine version was pretty the same, just look at Planescape infinite engine and compare it to BG and IWD infinite engine), used the same storyteller system among other similarities, to in the end.... make a hack and slash Diablo alike game.
So, don't take me wrong, i love Diablo II and i Love Baldur's Gate, but as i would hate an heavy bantered and talktive focused game using Diablo engine, i would hate too, an hack and slash linear game using Baldur's Gate Infinite engine, and this last is exactly what IWD is.
To end, i just want to say that IWD greatest problem is the lack of content, but a problem like this can be easly corrected on Enhanced Editions, when the problem can be solved by filling with content the solution isn't too hard.
The question is, after reading my post what you want for an IWD EE? A linear impersonal game in Baldur's Gate engine or a fully enhancement with tons of new contents that therefore will supress the all the impersonality, making the game to approach Baldur's Gate style?
IF that's the only reason you have for saying it's a bad game and not up to par, can't you just try to appreciate the things that are still decent but just aren't for you? It's like saying Planescape is a bad game because it doesn't have much combat.... personal taste...
Once more with feeling: I've never said that IWD is a bad game. What I've said is that characterization is an integral part of any story, in any medium (unlike, say, combat) and that IWD would be better off if the player had access to party members who could provide depth via their personalities and dialogue.
Speaking to you people is boring because you're determined one of us has to be right. I'm not interested in being right, I'm interested in the integrity of the game which I believe does not require NPCs. What kind of children do you think we should take after, bitching about rubbish like the value of IWD's story?
I realize everybody's opinion on this matter is subjective and therefore immune to anybody's 'opinion', no matter how much they want to be right.
@kamuizin What do you mean 'partial truths'? I was showing the differences in story and gameplay between Diablo and IWD
@shawne I noticed you ignored all of the comparisons except the ones you thought you could reasonably disprove. I speak of Diablo I because that's the only Diablo I've played, my knowledge on the other two is small. The two comparisons you said are biased aren't biased. IWD is a better game for two reasons: story and gameplay. Diablo's gameplay is not comparable to IWD, one of the reasons is that Diablo is made of generic dungeons and IWD is not.
I haven't played IWD2 either, the 3rd and GUI put me off. I was not speaking of IWDII.
The story of IWD is better than the story of Diablo as it contains more lore, active personalities who can shed light on past and future events (Larrel and Yxunomei) and because the Diablo story is one manipulated by the mass corporation of Blizzard (Diablo III's story is aweful by what I've heard). Diablo didn't wrap up nicely because of Blizzard, IWD did wrap up nicely because it was made with love.
Personally I don't care either way about IWD:EE. It is okay, if it comes out eventually, but I doubt I will be buying it. I like the atmosphere of the game, but it doesn't do as good job as RPG like Baldur's Gate did, and it nowhere near good as a hack n slash like Diablo series. IWD also never really motivated me to play it over again, again, again.
The difference is that the Goldbox games were products of the late '80s and early '90s, and were technologically limited in their capacity for either plot or characterization.
One of the most incredibly inaccurate and ridiculous statements in my 35 years of gaming. Obviously you've never played the Goldbox games. In future, it's just easier to say you've never played them.
What you're doing is using a distraction (eg. limited technology) to divert attention away from the fact that you haven't played the Goldbox games. Just to give you an example of how good the goldbox games were:
Pool of Radiance was the first goldbox game:
- won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1988 - praised the game's graphics and its role-playing adventure and combat aspects. - well-regarded was the ability to export player characters from Pool of Radiance to subsequent SSI games in the series. - the best RPG ever to grace the C64, or indeed any other computer etc.
Comments
It's not an interactive history, it’s an interactive story. A blank novel would be more analogous but it would still be wrong.
Also why doesn't P&P = Platform game style, they're both RPG's.
Icewind Dale could have been ported straight out of a P&P modual
That being said, it is nearly impossible not to compare the two. There are the obvious visual similarities, gameplay carry-overs, the list goes on. After my first play through IWD I couldn't help but compare it to BG and feel disappointed b/c it was so much more shallow and linear than BG, in my opinion. At the time, I didn't realize that IWD was not striving to be a BG clone. However, even after realizing this, I still find it impossible to erase that initial disappointment from years ago and the feeling of "this game is just too flat and I'm not invested in its story," from my brain. For that reason, I would most likely not purchase an IWD EE. I would rather see Planescape EE or something else.
Thank you, I will. They know me there.
I have no interest in Storytelling 101. Your self righteous concepts on what makes a story a story from your fifty page a day RP forums don't apply to video games. Why will interparty banter make IWD's story any better? The story is already articulated in everyway possible, even the Vale of Shadows and Severed Hand are stories IN themselves, not to mention the twist with Poquelin at the end. The story of it comes from the people OUTSIDE your party, the party itself is only a way to progress.
An epic story doesn't need to have epic characters, not in a video game like this. It IS a video game after all, the only purpose for your party is to overcome the fights, which are a major part of the game experience. It supplements the story, it does not take away from the story like in Diablo, which has NO story and is only playable if you have OCD or some similar clicking problem.
If you want to role play, then IWD is not your game. But don't spit on the story just because you have this flawed idea that NPC interactions will make the game playable, because the story will be just as good as it was before, but with some badly written characters. You can't just stick your nose up at everything you think is beneath you.
Storytelling doesn't apply to video games? Really? So I just imagined Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, Arcanum, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Knights of the Old Republic, Silent Hill and almost every other game that's come out in the past twenty years?
There's such a thing as basic story requirements - that's not an invention of mine, it's something that holds true in any medium. Stories need to be set in a specific time and place, they need a plot, and yes, they need characters. You can make the argument that some games don't tell stories, fair enough, but there's Pac-Man and there's Planescape Torment, and you'd do well not to lump the two together. And that's precisely where the criticism is coming from. The party is comprised of mechanical ciphers who have no stake in the plot, no reaction to anything that happens, and no direct involvement in the story events beyond their resolution of those events. It's basically a turn-based Diablo, and if it existed in a vacuum people might be content to leave it at that. But it doesn't, because whatever group you assign IWD to - Faerun games, Black Isle games, D&D-based games - IWD is the one that sticks out for precisely this reason. Now who's easily offended? As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing functionally wrong with IWD's plot, that's not what people are complaining about. That you're so mortally wounded and flailing about at the suggestion of adding a basic storytelling component to a game that's weaker for the lack of it speaks more to your issues than mine.
To sum up: you don't see the value of characterization in video games? As I've said, more power to you. I think IWD would benefit from it, and I'd enjoy an EE version more for having it.
When you main char isn't a main char, the player can't dive deep in the history.
It's like to see the Hulks movies, the first one used one actor, the second movie used another, and in the avengers, they choose a third actor for Hulk.
Pool of Radiance
Curse of the Azure Bonds
Secret of the Silver Blades
Pools of Darkness
Gateway to the Savage Frontier
Treasures of the Savage Frontier
Champions of Krynn
Death Knights of Krynn
The Dark Queen of Krynn
I'm happy there are no party interactions, because where you have them, you have people you hate. Then you have people you don't use even if you need their skills. IWD lets you build a party unbiased by your own particular taste in personalities, where you can do a little customizing of them through appearence, soundset and name. You have your characters, they just don't talk. I like that.
IWD is not turn based Diablo, because Diablo is just bad. The only thing Diablo has going for it is the atmosphere, which they captured very well (in the first one anyway). That's the only reason I have Diablo, because somebody really talented (just like the people who made assets for BG and IWD) made it have a FEEL to it.
IWD is solid, it has a feel, a story and the only thing it lacks is a 'personal' relationship between party members. But that part of it is irrelevant, when you actually play the game and enjoy the story. Because like I said, IWD isn't about you or your party members, it's about everybody else.
The Hulk example isn't a very good one, because that is a story about a SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE, IWD is not about any one group of people, because that group is only there to progress in fights.
BG - BALANCE STORY/GAMEPLAY
IWD - GAMEPLAY
Thats the way I look at the 3 main CRPG's that I love and for diffirent reasons. But that is not to say I didn't enjoy combat in Torment or find the story engaging in IWD. I think people just expect a certain type of game especially from IWD because it appeared the same flavour as BG. Haters gonna hate I'm still enjoying the hell out of it.
But for each person a way of think, i'm not here to convince anyone to agree with me (however i will reply in kind if people try to force their opinion in me), i'm here to answer this thread.
Does anyone NOT want an IWD EE? Yes, i'm one of those ones.
If i elaborate the question and explain why:
-Lack of interaction from the NPCs with each other and non joinable NPCs (what is funny to say cos NPC means non playable character
-Lack of main char.
-Lack of involvement of the story (pretty much in reason of the death aura that NPCs in this game spread.
IWD has a history, and a very coherent one at least (i finshed the game once). The problem isn't the lack of history but lack of incentive to replay (as any game with a nice coherent history allow us to enjoy it at least once).
Now that i know the history i simply don't have a reason to play IWD again, why would i do it? What different plot can i see there? There is any important choice that split the game somewhere so i must replay the game to see it? No, there's not.
So to end, i would not support IWD EE remake in the same way the old game was done, be happy anyone who want to support it, but i know i'm not alone in this.
However, if they want to bring life to IWD, to create NPCs and give them proper banters, something that make me feel alive in the game, part of something greater and not just a mechanical hack and slash... This kind of IceWind Dale i would support.
You guys sure take up a lot of words just to say you two disagree about the relative importance of story
@Jolanthus: I have little experience with PnP modules, but isn't it accurate to say that they're designed for multiple players, each controlling one character? That's still a scenario where a party is made up of different personalities (in this case, because the players are RPing their games differently) as opposed to a party that is designed and controlled by a single player.
@spacejaws: @kamuizin said it quite well, but just to reiterate, this isn't about hate. As I've said repeatedly, I don't have any problem with IWD's plot - but without the possibility of exploring that plot with different characters, there's no reason to go through the game more than once.
@Ward: You don't like the Diablo comparison? That's too bad, because you keep reinforcing it - everything you attribute to IWD (has a story that isn't about the player, lacks a personal connection to the protagonist, the PC is only there to engage in combat) is true of Diablo as well. I refer you to @Shin's comments - in terms of gameplay, they're functionally identical. If you don't like what that says about IWD, then maybe there's room for improving the game after all.
IWD: PC has conversations.
Diablo: PC just listens.
IWD: PC has options of reply
Diablo: PC is quiet.
IWD: Has no set protagonist, allowing you to choose somebody to speak and act as leader.
Diablo: Shoves a crystal in his head, making you have to invent a new protagonist.
IWD: Real time pausable combat with multiple characters performing individual tasks.
Diablo: "Aaahhh, fresh meat." - Click click click click click click click click click click.
IWD: A good story.
Diablo: A not so good demon story.
IWD: Developed levels consisting of periodic events, NPCs and elaborate artwork.
Diablo: Generic pregenerated dungeons.
IWD: Better
Diablo: Worse
IWD: Highly developed D&D class systems
Diablo: Skill points
IWD: Plot related twists, Yxunomei's vendette, Everard, drunken fisherman, narrator, ogre.
Diablo: Straight-forward game with predetermined set of side-quests.
IWD: Jim Cummings voicing two people you meet almost at the same time, hoping you won't notice much.
Diablo: No Jim Cummings to speak of.
IF that's the only reason you have for saying it's a bad game and not up to par, can't you just try to appreciate the things that are still decent but just aren't for you? It's like saying Planescape is a bad game because it doesn't have much combat.... personal taste...
Your entire statement base itself in partial truths (yes i agree they're minor truths) to separete both games. Any game with a deep evaluation will have many similarities and differences, the question is that in terms of personality, IWD much more close to diablo than Baldur's Gate.
The use of minor truths to divert the focus from the main statement will take us nowhere. I like Diablo II for example, that game has the ideal engine and story for it's style, i don't want to be overwhelmed with banter there, neither i care for a deep knowledge of an NPC behavior, that's not the point there.
IWD problem is that they used a D&D system, used the the most near P&P engine at that time, used the same bases as Baldur's Gate (cos the engine version was pretty the same, just look at Planescape infinite engine and compare it to BG and IWD infinite engine), used the same storyteller system among other similarities, to in the end.... make a hack and slash Diablo alike game.
So, don't take me wrong, i love Diablo II and i Love Baldur's Gate, but as i would hate an heavy bantered and talktive focused game using Diablo engine, i would hate too, an hack and slash linear game using Baldur's Gate Infinite engine, and this last is exactly what IWD is.
To end, i just want to say that IWD greatest problem is the lack of content, but a problem like this can be easly corrected on Enhanced Editions, when the problem can be solved by filling with content the solution isn't too hard.
The question is, after reading my post what you want for an IWD EE? A linear impersonal game in Baldur's Gate engine or a fully enhancement with tons of new contents that therefore will supress the all the impersonality, making the game to approach Baldur's Gate style?
I realize everybody's opinion on this matter is subjective and therefore immune to anybody's 'opinion', no matter how much they want to be right.
@kamuizin What do you mean 'partial truths'? I was showing the differences in story and gameplay between Diablo and IWD
@shawne I noticed you ignored all of the comparisons except the ones you thought you could reasonably disprove. I speak of Diablo I because that's the only Diablo I've played, my knowledge on the other two is small. The two comparisons you said are biased aren't biased. IWD is a better game for two reasons: story and gameplay. Diablo's gameplay is not comparable to IWD, one of the reasons is that Diablo is made of generic dungeons and IWD is not.
I haven't played IWD2 either, the 3rd and GUI put me off. I was not speaking of IWDII.
The story of IWD is better than the story of Diablo as it contains more lore, active personalities who can shed light on past and future events (Larrel and Yxunomei) and because the Diablo story is one manipulated by the mass corporation of Blizzard (Diablo III's story is aweful by what I've heard). Diablo didn't wrap up nicely because of Blizzard, IWD did wrap up nicely because it was made with love.
What you're doing is using a distraction (eg. limited technology) to divert attention away from the fact that you haven't played the Goldbox games. Just to give you an example of how good the goldbox games were:
Pool of Radiance was the first goldbox game:
- won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1988
- praised the game's graphics and its role-playing adventure and combat aspects.
- well-regarded was the ability to export player characters from Pool of Radiance to subsequent SSI games in the series.
- the best RPG ever to grace the C64, or indeed any other computer
etc.