@Tetraploid Well, i have a new game made on the same engine of a previous one, and i take off elements that made the previous game a sucess... it's pretty clear to me the "regression of quality" here, but everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
In Baldur's Gate, a older game made on the same engine i can create all the 6 characters using multi-player, i can create a single character using single player and i can use multi-player to create 1+ characters, and later i can reform party if i want to add the pre-made NPCs.
In Icewind Dale, i can only create 1+ characters as there is no joinable NPC.
If you call lack of content quality as an argument, you should at least explain me why.
Icewind dale was published 29 june of 2000 and Baldur's Gate II was published 24 september of 2000, so in defense of Icewind dale i can raise at least that they took only BG in account when they made IWD, and BG don't develop their NPCs so well as Baldur's Gate II.
I don't like much the way that random tesaures exist in IWD (however i really like the raw idea of random tesaures, just should be done different), i feel that new areas could be created for IWD and some adds on main plot are in order, but my main issue with IWD is the lack of joinable NPCs (with proper banters, reasons and quests).
Surelly i would not support a vanilla remake of IWD with no change on the above matters, but as my main issue are with the NPCs, their addition to an EE version of IWD would change my behavior toward this game and probally i would support the idea this way (although i don't know if i would pre-order, i would probally wait to buy it after the launch and some videos and comments of the game to be released)
Outside of the settlements, random people are few and far between. Also, you're there to sign on as mercenaries to investigate the strange goings on. Mercenary groups won't just bring people in willy-nilly, not unless they're short on numbers or have need of a specialist skill they don't have.
The point is, party interactions are fun, but so is creating your own party.
I think a solution would be to design a combinatory system where the class, the race and the alignment of the character you create determines his background and banters.
As they already know each others, your characters wouldn't focus much on their past, but mostly on what is happening at the moment : for example, they could react to some loot they find, to the monsters they just killed, to a new area, or a plot twist, etc.
This system could also handle which characters are in a romance, which are brothers and/or sisters, and so on.
That, of course, would be a lot of work, it's the developers' call to say if its worth it or not, but in my opinion, it would be one hell of an enhancement!
This is a long thread and someone else must have mentioned it already, but the linearity is a real downer (you would think it would show off the great story better! but no)
When you start up a game of IWD you know EXACTLY what order things are going to happen in whereas in a game where you determine the order of encounters you will have different equipment, different levels (different NPCs?) at the start of any given venture, which is an awesome part of BG.
IWD 1 with BG 2 kits, races, IWD 2 races, more items for random loot, new spells, new kits, NPC's, new quests, new areas? OMFG yes please....10000000x yes.
Firstly, what are you describing is not simply 'lack of content'. It is the absence of a particular single feature that you value. IWD has plenty of content.
Your argument seems to be that any feature introduced in a game must be carried through to all future games. However, imagine a game that actually did include every feature previously introduced in a game. It would be cluttered and complex and terrible! Sometimes, it does make sense for developers to ignore possible features, even though they have been done before and would be seemingly plausible.
Whether or not they should do so for specific features in specific games becomes nothing more than personal preference. You believe IWD would be better with NPCs. Alright, that's fine, you're welcome to think so and many would agree. On the other hand, many have pointed out that the style of IWD does not lend itself so readily to NPCs as BG does. For example, the more linear nature of the game, means that you would either have to recruit all NPCs at once, in Kuldahar for example, or in a strictly linear fashion, giving you little option in who you recruited and when. Either mechanism could feel relatively forced compared to BG where you could happen across NPCs in various orders and at various stages during the story. In contrast, while sure, you can make your own multiplayer party in BG, it doesn't really fit in from a roleplaying point of view. The games have different styles and the absence/presence of NPCs is, I believe, a symptom of that, not a determinant of quality.
Sometimes, more features does not simply = better.
(And if that isn't enough explaining for you, well, I'm going to bed )
The point is, party interactions are fun, but so is creating your own party.
I think a solution would be to design a combinatory system where the class, the race and the alignment of the character you create determines his background and banters.
As they already know each others, your characters wouldn't focus much on their past, but mostly on what is happening at the moment : for example, they could react to some loot they find, to the monsters they just killed, to a new area, or a plot twist, etc.
This system could also handle which characters are in a romance, which are brothers and/or sisters, and so on.
That, of course, would be a lot of work, it's the developers' call to say if its worth it or not, but in my opinion, it would be one hell of an enhancement!
If not for IWD:EE, at least save it for IWD3 :P
I wanted something similar for Dragon Quest IX. My idea, basically, was that you would make all of your characters, but PART of the character creation process would be assigning a "personality" that would determine dialog. You'd have maybe 6 characters you make, for example, and 12 personalities--6 distinct personalities with two variants--like hero/snarky hero; mischievous thief/heartless thief; honorable warrior/bloodthirsty warrior; etc., etc.
It would be impossible to manage with a voiced game, but a text-based game like Baldur's Gate (or Dragon Quest) is practically perfect for this kind of thing.
To think of it another way, it'd be like if you started up Shadows of Amn and got prompts for all your characters... you could make them any way you wanted, only you'd assign an "ID" to each one of them. Make the Half Orc into Jaheria, the halfling sorceress Minsc, and so on. (And, yeah, we can do this ourselves in any IE game with the Shadowkeeper/Gatekeeper/Dalekeeper apps).
That way you can combine the versatility of a fully customizable party as well as the dynamic party interaction that catapulted Baldur's Gate II into apotheosis.
I'll galdly take any of the BG/Infinity era D&D games in an EE. I'm glad to get any of these games fully bug fixed, tweaked and more playable on modern hardware.
@Tetraploid, ok nicely replied, but lemme do some analysis there:
IWD is based in the same engine, system, world and D&D edition of Baldur's Gate, not only that it was launched 3 months before BG2 only. So taking those facts, i say yes, the lack of a crucial content (and HERE is where we disagree) is a lost of quality.
As everything in this world, ideas evolve all the time, the NPC idea for specific this kind of game is an evolution, so much that almost every game in the style today use joinable NPCs. See Dragon Age (origins and 2), Mass Effect serie, NWN2 among others. Joinable NPCs with solid background wasn't created by BG as many other older games as Fallout and Planescape: Torment use them for example.
As i told before the lack of joinable NPCs discourage the reply interest rate of Icewind Dale, and this is a fact. I played vanilla BG2 for 5 year pratically, before i discover the world of mods , but IWD i finshed only once, as i didn't have patience to repeat the same events again. Is this only because of the absent existence of joinable NPCs? Yes and no, it's because of the absent of joinable NPCs in THIS style of game.
Therefore:
"Your argument seems to be that any feature introduced in a game must be carried through to all future games".
Yes and no, first of all lets take off the fallacy of the argument above (i don't mean any offense here, but your statement is not what i said before).
I believe that most good features introduced in a game shoud be carried through some of the future games in that style. And i truly believe that Icewind Dale would only benefit from the addition of joinable NPCs. Even if i stated as you said, with an invariable assertion, that doesn't change the fact that IWD is totally compatible with joinable NPCs.
Joinable NPCs with proper history as i said is evolution, when they take this off with no substitute, the act is just a regression, therefore we lost, by nature, quality.
The problems you raised to block this idea aren't strong enough in my view, an NPC that joins you in the begin of IWD don't need to be lvl 1, so a warrior with a common equipment (as we start without equipment on IWD) could easly carry the begin of the game. And this is just the start of ideas, the first NPCs that joins you could die a plot death after (if they're still alive), a non controlable NPC could temporally join the party, You could still keep the option to create the 6 characters... So many possibilities that i can't call the lack of choices, the absent of opportunity of difference, i can only feel it as lack of content, therefore a drop on the game quality.
The problems you raised to block this idea aren't strong enough in my view, an NPC that joins you in the begin of IWD don't need to be lvl 1, so a warrior with a common equipment (as we start without equipment on IWD) could easly carry the begin of the game. And this is just the start of ideas, the first NPCs that joins you could die a plot death after (if they're still alive),
So after having an NPC join you in Easthaven, you want to kill them off as soon as you leave. Why pick them up them in the first place, what's the point?
a non controlable NPC could temporally join the party, You could still keep the option to create the 6 characters... So many possibilities that i can't call the lack of choices, the absent of opportunity of difference, i can only feel it as lack of content, therefore a drop on the game quality.
Apart from firstly in Easthaven then Kuldahar, there are no real places to have an NPC join you. Dragon's eye, Dorns Deep, Severed hand are all 'lair's and you can only move forward.
The game doesn't allow for NPC's and that's why you're creating a party of 6 to start with.
For you maybe, not me. Making this opinion, not fact.
If i was alone in this opinion, ok we could call it opinion, if i raise the voice of more or less 50% of the community (look at the pool for more detailed % data) i made a fact. Replay interest is subjective by nature, what define it as an fact is the % of users that feel in the same way.
So after having an NPC join you in Easthaven, you want to kill them off as soon as you leave. Why pick them up them in the first place, what's the point?
Eerr should i really answer this one? you can do better than it. Lemme use here examples instead justifies, ok?
PC RPG games:
NWN2 - Amie Fern, Shandra Jerro, Sand/Quara, Neeska, Bishop, Elanee MotB expansion - Well, everyone there, since you can eat the soul of every party member. Dragon Age - the other guys elected to become Wardens. Dragon Age 2 - one of the champion brother's based on his class choice (normally). Mass Effect - prattically everyone can die (including you) there. ME Alenko/Ashe, Wrex. ME2 everyone. ME3 Everyone that take part in the final mission dies no matter what (with one exception).
Other game styles:
Final fantasy games (they're famous for killing their NPCs there). Chrono Thrigger kills the main char itself there, and you can even end the game without ressurecting him.
Well i believe this is an enough answer.
Apart from firstly in Easthaven then Kuldahar, there are no real places to have an NPC join you. Dragon's eye, Dorns Deep, Severed hand are all 'lair's and you can only move forward.
So we can't recruit NPCs in dungeons? Tell me more about this awersome subject that i never heard before, so i can tell minsc and jaheira in BG2 that they're doing wrong their NPC work at the begin of the game. Xan will be more depressed than ever now and surelly yeslick will understand now when i refuse him, as will say that i can't accept him in the party cos he's triyng to join the party inside a dungeon.
@Kyoshiro80 It took me several tries to get into that game actually. I started it over and over again for years until I finally decided to play it.
See I had just won BG the first time and I decided to play IWD properly, once I got past the Vale of Shadows it was FUN.
I don't understand why it isn't compelling, the scenery is beautiful, the music is too and the combat is so fleshed out and the system is better in IWD. Aside from no NPCs talking over the top of you, IWD is a solid game with a solid appeal. A great story, a great artist and a lot of fun.
I'll never think no NPC interactions is a good enough reason, but I enjoyed the game without them so I'm biased. If other people don't that's a shame, but IWD is good enough for me without.
I played Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 before I played Icewind Dale and I had absolutely no problem with the transition or differences.
Icewind Dale is about atmosphere and encounters. It's a great dungeon crawl in the P&P style.
I'd certainly pay for an IWD:EE but it doesn't need to be completely overboard, because the game in itself is already pretty good.
IWD+HOW+Trials @) Stuff from current mods Higher Resolution / Open GL Two Weapon Fighting (Please dont use BG2 sprites or paperdolls :<) More Items More classes
Extra content .... well I suppose since the game 'wasn't finished', perhaps find out what they were going to try and do and re-envision it?
If i was alone in this opinion, ok we could call it opinion, if i raise the voice of more or less 50% of the community (look at the pool for more detailed % data) i made a fact.
Errr...fact isn't decided by mob vote. Even if 99% of the people in the entire world agreed with you, it still wouldn't make it a fact, just a strongly held opinion. (Many people used to believe the Sun orbited the Earth but that didn't make it true!) Unfortunately, while I believe you do otherwise raise some valid points, the second you try to justify your opinion as fact people will stop taking you seriously. I for one won't be returning to this thread: I've said my piece and don't want to get dragged further into a discussion that is decreasingly relevant and risks getting confrontational, which in particular I would like to avoid - as a BG-loving community we should be united in this joyous time!
I came to this forum because I was excited about BG:EE, and I was a little disheartened to arrive here and see a thread that seems so centered around shooting down IWD:EE before it's even being considered! There are plenty of people in the world who don't care for BG, but they aren't here ruining our fun, are they? I think we should all be happy that IE games are getting the attention they deserve, and even if potential future projects are less interesting to you personally that's no reason to complain. I, for one, will happily support any an EE of any of the games, even PS:T which I've never actually played, because I support the idea behind what they are doing as much as the actual execution of it. Instead of people just saying they disliked IWD, why not talk about what you'd like to see in an EE if one ever happened? Focus on potential for success, not failure!
@Tetraploid The logic that if enough people believe something, it becomes a fact, reminds me of wikipedia, and I would thank @Kamuizin not to promote it.
Do you know how many manipulative, backstabbing, politically motivated businessmen, beaurecrats, edit wikipedia in a biased way (which is against their policy).
The fact that if enough people believe something that it becomes real is a scary thought. Because people actually think it works like that. That's why beaurecrats can edit wikipedia in a biased way without anybody caring. What a corruptive way of thinking.
The other thing that pisses me off is when somebody has an opinion about something, but it is wrong. There's a difference between an opinion and being wrong. I'm not saying kamuizin is wrong about not liking IWD, because that's an opinion based off his own enjoyment and is therefore not applicable to 'wrong or right', but he is wrong about opinion = fact.
Also I should point out that if you say "If 50% of the people have an opinion it's a fact", you're speaking like an American politician. And as we all know American politicians (especially the Republican fanboys from Fox News who unfairly support them) are biased and motivated by phony business exploits. I'm Australian yet I know this, our politicians behave the same way and they behave like animals.
Just because 50% of the people have an opinion doesn't mean they're right. It means 50% of the people have been swayed to think a certain way (when it comes to voting) or when it comes to IWD, 50% of the people have made the same decision.
But when it comes to IWD nobody is right. If 99.9% of people don't want IWD:EE and I do, I'm still right. That particular opinion is not wrong, when many people's opinions ARE wrong because people have manipulated them, do you see?
@Tetraploid, lol dude, in subjective matters a fact is a fact, there's no truth or lie in it.
If 99% of the people of the world start to not like vanilla ice cream anymore, no one will produce it after that.
The fact that the earth circle around the sun is a mathematical truth, an mathematical truth is a kind of fact, when you use a specie to define a gender, inevitably you will end up being based on a fallacy.
The fact that 50% of the people (more or less) here don't have a replay interest in IWD means that IWD has a lack of replay interest.
It's very amusing (edited for a better word) the way you and @Ward try to dance with the words, but using this argue as base is dance over a soapy floor.
Ps: i don't mean offence with the last comment, i feel it's funny cos i liked the way you worked the words there, it's a fragile argument but in another moment (with another person maybe) that argue could easly reject a simple subjective matter.
If i was alone in this opinion, ok we could call it opinion, if i raise the voice of more or less 50% of the community (look at the pool for more detailed % data) i made a fact. Replay interest is subjective by nature, what define it as an fact is the % of users that feel in the same way.
Wrong... If 99% of people believe the sun revolved around the earth they'd still be wrong.
Eerr should i really answer this one? you can do better than it. Lemme use here examples instead justifies, ok?
PC RPG games:
NWN2 - Amie Fern, Shandra Jerro, Sand/Quara, Neeska, Bishop, Elanee MotB expansion - Well, everyone there, since you can eat the soul of every party member.
Can die but don't have to and eating their souls that's player choice, not forced plot death.
Dragon Age - the other guys elected to become Wardens. Yes, but they're little more than 'tutorial dungeon' NPC's.
Dragon Age 2 - one of the champion brother's based on his class choice (normally). Forced plot death.
Mass Effect - prattically everyone can die (including you) there. ME Alenko/Ashe, Wrex. First is at least Player choice. .... they don't die anyway and wrex can be avoided.
ME2 everyone.
Everyone can survive too.
ME3 Everyone that take part in the final mission dies no matter what (with one exception). And look how well that turned out.
Other game styles:
Final fantasy games (they're famous for killing their NPCs there). Also famous for pissing off their players by killing them off too. To the point they retconned one of their games.
Chrono Thrigger kills the main char itself there, and you can even end the game without ressurecting him. No idea about this game, I'll take your word for it.
Yes you can have NPC character deaths but most of the time they feel forced if they can't be avoided and this pisses players off more.
So we can't recruit NPCs in dungeons? Tell me more about this awersome subject that i never heard before, so i can tell minsc and jaheira in BG2 that they're doing wrong their NPC work at the begin of the game. Xan will be more depressed than ever now and surelly yeslick will understand now when i refuse him, as will say that i can't accept him in the party cos he's triyng to join the party inside a dungeon.
I'll concede that point to you, but once I have a party set, I'm not likely to change it. If I have space they can come along, if not they can go on their merry way.
I replay IWD more often than BG. I enjoy making my own parties, and I find it's better for a custom party than BG. I think it looks better and has a better difficulty curve and is balanced better, due to expecting there to be 6 characters at all times and *because* it's linear.
I'd still say BG is overall better due to the immensity of it and the story, but I don't understand why people need to compare them to one another so much. They have a very different emphasis, and will appeal to different people. I don't see the same arguments about Planescape, I think because there's a much more obvious distinction, but *really*, trying to push BG elements into IWD feels very misguided.
You know, I've never been able to finish IWD or IWD2. I've finished the Baldur's Gate series at least 10 times. I think, for me, it's the absence of playable NPCs; that's a huge disadvantage. Maybe if IWD:EE INCLUDED new playable NPCs? Then I might be interested.
Comments
In Baldur's Gate, a older game made on the same engine i can create all the 6 characters using multi-player, i can create a single character using single player and i can use multi-player to create 1+ characters, and later i can reform party if i want to add the pre-made NPCs.
In Icewind Dale, i can only create 1+ characters as there is no joinable NPC.
If you call lack of content quality as an argument, you should at least explain me why.
Icewind dale was published 29 june of 2000 and Baldur's Gate II was published 24 september of 2000, so in defense of Icewind dale i can raise at least that they took only BG in account when they made IWD, and BG don't develop their NPCs so well as Baldur's Gate II.
I don't like much the way that random tesaures exist in IWD (however i really like the raw idea of random tesaures, just should be done different), i feel that new areas could be created for IWD and some adds on main plot are in order, but my main issue with IWD is the lack of joinable NPCs (with proper banters, reasons and quests).
Surelly i would not support a vanilla remake of IWD with no change on the above matters, but as my main issue are with the NPCs, their addition to an EE version of IWD would change my behavior toward this game and probally i would support the idea this way (although i don't know if i would pre-order, i would probally wait to buy it after the launch and some videos and comments of the game to be released)
I think a solution would be to design a combinatory system where the class, the race and the alignment of the character you create determines his background and banters.
As they already know each others, your characters wouldn't focus much on their past, but mostly on what is happening at the moment : for example, they could react to some loot they find, to the monsters they just killed, to a new area, or a plot twist, etc.
This system could also handle which characters are in a romance, which are brothers and/or sisters, and so on.
That, of course, would be a lot of work, it's the developers' call to say if its worth it or not, but in my opinion, it would be one hell of an enhancement!
If not for IWD:EE, at least save it for IWD3 :P
When you start up a game of IWD you know EXACTLY what order things are going to happen in whereas in a game where you determine the order of encounters you will have different equipment, different levels (different NPCs?) at the start of any given venture, which is an awesome part of BG.
still, I love IWD.
Firstly, what are you describing is not simply 'lack of content'. It is the absence of a particular single feature that you value. IWD has plenty of content.
Your argument seems to be that any feature introduced in a game must be carried through to all future games. However, imagine a game that actually did include every feature previously introduced in a game. It would be cluttered and complex and terrible! Sometimes, it does make sense for developers to ignore possible features, even though they have been done before and would be seemingly plausible.
Whether or not they should do so for specific features in specific games becomes nothing more than personal preference. You believe IWD would be better with NPCs. Alright, that's fine, you're welcome to think so and many would agree. On the other hand, many have pointed out that the style of IWD does not lend itself so readily to NPCs as BG does. For example, the more linear nature of the game, means that you would either have to recruit all NPCs at once, in Kuldahar for example, or in a strictly linear fashion, giving you little option in who you recruited and when. Either mechanism could feel relatively forced compared to BG where you could happen across NPCs in various orders and at various stages during the story. In contrast, while sure, you can make your own multiplayer party in BG, it doesn't really fit in from a roleplaying point of view. The games have different styles and the absence/presence of NPCs is, I believe, a symptom of that, not a determinant of quality.
Sometimes, more features does not simply = better.
(And if that isn't enough explaining for you, well, I'm going to bed
...if Jeremy Soule made a completely new soundtrack as good as the one initially released. Best game soundtrack ever.
It would be impossible to manage with a voiced game, but a text-based game like Baldur's Gate (or Dragon Quest) is practically perfect for this kind of thing.
To think of it another way, it'd be like if you started up Shadows of Amn and got prompts for all your characters... you could make them any way you wanted, only you'd assign an "ID" to each one of them. Make the Half Orc into Jaheria, the halfling sorceress Minsc, and so on. (And, yeah, we can do this ourselves in any IE game with the Shadowkeeper/Gatekeeper/Dalekeeper apps).
That way you can combine the versatility of a fully customizable party as well as the dynamic party interaction that catapulted Baldur's Gate II into apotheosis.
IWD is based in the same engine, system, world and D&D edition of Baldur's Gate, not only that it was launched 3 months before BG2 only. So taking those facts, i say yes, the lack of a crucial content (and HERE is where we disagree) is a lost of quality.
As everything in this world, ideas evolve all the time, the NPC idea for specific this kind of game is an evolution, so much that almost every game in the style today use joinable NPCs. See Dragon Age (origins and 2), Mass Effect serie, NWN2 among others. Joinable NPCs with solid background wasn't created by BG as many other older games as Fallout and Planescape: Torment use them for example.
As i told before the lack of joinable NPCs discourage the reply interest rate of Icewind Dale, and this is a fact. I played vanilla BG2 for 5 year pratically, before i discover the world of mods
Therefore:
"Your argument seems to be that any feature introduced in a game must be carried through to all future games".
Yes and no, first of all lets take off the fallacy of the argument above (i don't mean any offense here, but your statement is not what i said before).
I believe that most good features introduced in a game shoud be carried through some of the future games in that style. And i truly believe that Icewind Dale would only benefit from the addition of joinable NPCs. Even if i stated as you said, with an invariable assertion, that doesn't change the fact that IWD is totally compatible with joinable NPCs.
Joinable NPCs with proper history as i said is evolution, when they take this off with no substitute, the act is just a regression, therefore we lost, by nature, quality.
The problems you raised to block this idea aren't strong enough in my view, an NPC that joins you in the begin of IWD don't need to be lvl 1, so a warrior with a common equipment (as we start without equipment on IWD) could easly carry the begin of the game. And this is just the start of ideas, the first NPCs that joins you could die a plot death after (if they're still alive), a non controlable NPC could temporally join the party, You could still keep the option to create the 6 characters... So many possibilities that i can't call the lack of choices, the absent of opportunity of difference, i can only feel it as lack of content, therefore a drop on the game quality.
The game doesn't allow for NPC's and that's why you're creating a party of 6 to start with.
For you maybe, not me. Making this opinion, not fact.
If i was alone in this opinion, ok we could call it opinion, if i raise the voice of more or less 50% of the community (look at the pool for more detailed % data) i made a fact. Replay interest is subjective by nature, what define it as an fact is the % of users that feel in the same way.
So after having an NPC join you in Easthaven, you want to kill them off as soon as you leave. Why pick them up them in the first place, what's the point?
Eerr should i really answer this one? you can do better than it. Lemme use here examples instead justifies, ok?
PC RPG games:
NWN2 - Amie Fern, Shandra Jerro, Sand/Quara, Neeska, Bishop, Elanee
MotB expansion - Well, everyone there, since you can eat the soul of every party member.
Dragon Age - the other guys elected to become Wardens.
Dragon Age 2 - one of the champion brother's based on his class choice (normally).
Mass Effect - prattically everyone can die (including you) there. ME Alenko/Ashe, Wrex. ME2 everyone. ME3 Everyone that take part in the final mission dies no matter what (with one exception).
Other game styles:
Final fantasy games (they're famous for killing their NPCs there).
Chrono Thrigger kills the main char itself there, and you can even end the game without ressurecting him.
Well i believe this is an enough answer.
Apart from firstly in Easthaven then Kuldahar, there are no real places to have an NPC join you. Dragon's eye, Dorns Deep, Severed hand are all 'lair's and you can only move forward.
So we can't recruit NPCs in dungeons? Tell me more about this awersome subject that i never heard before, so i can tell minsc and jaheira in BG2 that they're doing wrong their NPC work at the begin of the game. Xan will be more depressed than ever now and surelly yeslick will understand now when i refuse him, as will say that i can't accept him in the party cos he's triyng to join the party inside a dungeon.
See I had just won BG the first time and I decided to play IWD properly, once I got past the Vale of Shadows it was FUN.
I don't understand why it isn't compelling, the scenery is beautiful, the music is too and the combat is so fleshed out and the system is better in IWD. Aside from no NPCs talking over the top of you, IWD is a solid game with a solid appeal. A great story, a great artist and a lot of fun.
I'll never think no NPC interactions is a good enough reason, but I enjoyed the game without them so I'm biased. If other people don't that's a shame, but IWD is good enough for me without.
I played Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 before I played Icewind Dale and I had absolutely no problem with the transition or differences.
Icewind Dale is about atmosphere and encounters. It's a great dungeon crawl in the P&P style.
I'd certainly pay for an IWD:EE but it doesn't need to be completely overboard, because the game in itself is already pretty good.
IWD+HOW+Trials
@)
Stuff from current mods
Higher Resolution / Open GL
Two Weapon Fighting
(Please dont use BG2 sprites or paperdolls :<)
More Items
More classes
Extra content .... well I suppose since the game 'wasn't finished', perhaps find out what they were going to try and do and re-envision it?
Plus one could always use another icy adventure.
I came to this forum because I was excited about BG:EE, and I was a little disheartened to arrive here and see a thread that seems so centered around shooting down IWD:EE before it's even being considered! There are plenty of people in the world who don't care for BG, but they aren't here ruining our fun, are they? I think we should all be happy that IE games are getting the attention they deserve, and even if potential future projects are less interesting to you personally that's no reason to complain. I, for one, will happily support any an EE of any of the games, even PS:T which I've never actually played, because I support the idea behind what they are doing as much as the actual execution of it. Instead of people just saying they disliked IWD, why not talk about what you'd like to see in an EE if one ever happened? Focus on potential for success, not failure!
Do you know how many manipulative, backstabbing, politically motivated businessmen, beaurecrats, edit wikipedia in a biased way (which is against their policy).
The fact that if enough people believe something that it becomes real is a scary thought. Because people actually think it works like that. That's why beaurecrats can edit wikipedia in a biased way without anybody caring. What a corruptive way of thinking.
The other thing that pisses me off is when somebody has an opinion about something, but it is wrong. There's a difference between an opinion and being wrong. I'm not saying kamuizin is wrong about not liking IWD, because that's an opinion based off his own enjoyment and is therefore not applicable to 'wrong or right', but he is wrong about opinion = fact.
Just because 50% of the people have an opinion doesn't mean they're right. It means 50% of the people have been swayed to think a certain way (when it comes to voting) or when it comes to IWD, 50% of the people have made the same decision.
But when it comes to IWD nobody is right. If 99.9% of people don't want IWD:EE and I do, I'm still right. That particular opinion is not wrong, when many people's opinions ARE wrong because people have manipulated them, do you see?
If 99% of the people of the world start to not like vanilla ice cream anymore, no one will produce it after that.
The fact that the earth circle around the sun is a mathematical truth, an mathematical truth is a kind of fact, when you use a specie to define a gender, inevitably you will end up being based on a fallacy.
The fact that 50% of the people (more or less) here don't have a replay interest in IWD means that IWD has a lack of replay interest.
It's very amusing (edited for a better word) the way you and @Ward try to dance with the words, but using this argue as base is dance over a soapy floor.
Ps: i don't mean offence with the last comment, i feel it's funny cos i liked the way you worked the words there, it's a fragile argument but in another moment (with another person maybe) that argue could easly reject a simple subjective matter.
(I like IWD, especially a lot more than all the chumps bashing it in here, but ... just no.)
Wrong... If 99% of people believe the sun revolved around the earth they'd still be wrong.
Eerr should i really answer this one? you can do better than it. Lemme use here examples instead justifies, ok?
PC RPG games:
NWN2 - Amie Fern, Shandra Jerro, Sand/Quara, Neeska, Bishop, Elanee
MotB expansion - Well, everyone there, since you can eat the soul of every party member.
Can die but don't have to and eating their souls that's player choice, not forced plot death.
Dragon Age - the other guys elected to become Wardens.
Yes, but they're little more than 'tutorial dungeon' NPC's.
Dragon Age 2 - one of the champion brother's based on his class choice (normally).
Forced plot death.
Mass Effect - prattically everyone can die (including you) there. ME Alenko/Ashe, Wrex.
First is at least Player choice. .... they don't die anyway and wrex can be avoided.
ME2 everyone.
Everyone can survive too.
ME3 Everyone that take part in the final mission dies no matter what (with one exception).
And look how well that turned out.
Other game styles:
Final fantasy games (they're famous for killing their NPCs there).
Also famous for pissing off their players by killing them off too. To the point they retconned one of their games.
Chrono Thrigger kills the main char itself there, and you can even end the game without ressurecting him.
No idea about this game, I'll take your word for it.
Yes you can have NPC character deaths but most of the time they feel forced if they can't be avoided and this pisses players off more.
So we can't recruit NPCs in dungeons? Tell me more about this awersome subject that i never heard before, so i can tell minsc and jaheira in BG2 that they're doing wrong their NPC work at the begin of the game. Xan will be more depressed than ever now and surelly yeslick will understand now when i refuse him, as will say that i can't accept him in the party cos he's triyng to join the party inside a dungeon.
I'll concede that point to you, but once I have a party set, I'm not likely to change it. If I have space they can come along, if not they can go on their merry way.
I'd still say BG is overall better due to the immensity of it and the story, but I don't understand why people need to compare them to one another so much. They have a very different emphasis, and will appeal to different people. I don't see the same arguments about Planescape, I think because there's a much more obvious distinction, but *really*, trying to push BG elements into IWD feels very misguided.
If the art assets are intact we would even have the chance that someone would mod it into BG.