I'm loving the implied laziness on Overhaul's part with the language of the thread's title. Yes, they "didn't bother" to do something costly and pointless. How dare they? Those monsters.
Could you take your self-entitlement elsewhere, please?
The best part of the IE is that it has aged pretty well. Sure it is obviously aged and not up-to-date, but compare it with the 3D games that came after. I'm currently playing around with NWN1 (when I get bored at BG1 =P) and sheesh, it looks worse than the much older BG. I think the 2D models just stop aging after a while But 3D? that stuff can look bad (depending on style) 3-4 years after it came out! The second good point about the IE is.. it runs on nearly everything. Even people who have left the computer-gaming scene and just have office computers or older models can enjoy the game with no drawbacks. So yeah, I hope they keep using either the infinity engine or another similiar engine, because these games are enjoyable in 2D, stay enjoyable for decades and can be played by everyone who has a computer, regardless of the graphic card.
Wow, that does sound like a ton of work. How about replacing 2D sprites and inserting real 3D models (like in Pillars of Eternity) into the Infinty Engine then? Is it possible? Is it cheaper?
well maybe. you see at a certain point in a game's development they have to decide on graphics, and the first decision is whether to go 2D or 3D. 2D needs less of an engine to work, however every frame of animation has to be made individually.
so depending on how many sprites are made, their resolution, and how detailed the animations are determine how much work 2D is.
3D is determined by how seamlessly you want the sprites, the polygons the sprite is made of (more polygons is easier to make), how individual you want the sprites (you can reuse parts in various ways), special effects like LoD (level of detail), and how good the graphics engine is (how efficient it is resource wise as well as how good the graphics look).
so basically the number of sprites is the big determining factor as to how costly 2D is, while 3D has a big investment up front in the engine, but tends to have less cost per sprite. in the early days of 3D however there was a process of making 2D sprites cheaper to produce than they were previously. this method was to have 3D models, which are not intended to be in the game, which goes through the animations and such and 'snapshots' are taken which are then used as 2D sprites.
this hybrid method was what the IE games used, and making sprites was vastly cheaper than making them than the previous methods. if the EE games were to redo the sprites, this is the most likely method. however without the original 3D models they would have to recreate them, then check if they matched up with the originals (and redo them until the do match up). then they can go through the process of taking 'snapshots' in order to make hi res sprites. keep in mind that the high res sprites will show flaws in the base 3D model and thus the 3D model will need to be decent quality.
now the IE games reused in game sprites alot, at least within its own game. the EE games reuse assets from the IE games, and do so within a single 'super' engine (each game doesn't use a modified version of the base engine like the IE games do). so any work that gets done can use assets from a different game and thus end up with a 'new' sprite (as far as that one game is concerned compared to the original). this gives the option of not making new sprites at all (or at the very least not having to make a large portion of sprites).
so the argument for better sprites isn't just a matter of if it is a new game, but how much totally brand new sprites are being created vs. reusing old assets for 'new' sprites and how forgiving is the community towards failures to match the old look. after that you can then begin to get an idea of how much the extra cost will be for 2D and 3D sprites.
given that the old IE games have good graphics that are simply old (they have aged well, but they are quite old) that sets the bar fairly high for any attempts at redoing sprites. now given that by reusing old assets they can have a fairly robust array of 'free' sprites there is very little need to make new ones to actually make a game (let alone an expansion). so as long as they keep graphical quality roughly the same they can forgo 90% of sprite costs. with all of that taken into account, the best time to make a large amount of sprites is with a brand new game (BG3), which once you have an experienced team for doing sprites you can keep them on and redo all the sprites in all the games.
overall in order to get the graphics right, given that the original BG team had 16 people, i'd estimate a team size between 20-30 people to get it done in about 4-6 years (all games, including BG3 and PS:TEE). to make that feasible they'd pretty much have to double the sales from updated sprites alone, and hope the sprites age just as well as the old ones as they sprites will be old by the time they finish.
I would much rather they spend their energy and resources into creative pursuits over the mind-numbing process of redrawing every sprite in the game. Which they are doing
I get the enthusiasm with a new game and all, but it's getting old seeing the same old IE graphically after 17 years.
For me, it got to a point where it's getting tiring. This is the 4th "EE" game in IE.
I had the same feeling when i saw the 20th game visually reminiscing of World of Warcraft. Even though, I never played WoW, but all of a sudden every 'rpg' looked to me like WoW. Before that, there was a brief era of crappy tile based 3d, which looked pretty ugly, uglier than hand-painted isometric. Anyway, by now, every graphic/gameplay style is likely similar to a previous one. Pick the ones you like and don't play those you dislike. I personally have a very wide range of liked rpg's. Starting from games like Shadows of Mordor (barely an rpg), through Skyrim/Witcher, through DA:I (didn't like previous DA games too much though), then Pillars (though it felt a bit like early NWN games), all the way to the EE games.
I may be jumping to conclusions, but is it possible they've done something with the goblin sprites? The existing graphics have an extremely limited weapon selection, which might nerf M’Khiin Grubdoubler a bit, and possibly the whole shaman class along with her. At the moment they only have animations for using bows and axe + shield as far as I'm aware, which would mean M’Khiin couldn't even use the staff/club in her portrait picture!
Would they be able to redraw some extra weapons or something, like replace a swinging axe with a swinging dagger/club? Fixing one creature animation might be doable whereas every playable race / class might not be. Didn't a developer say they'd done some monster animation tweaks?
I may be jumping to conclusions, but is it possible they've done something with the goblin sprites?
This is what I've been wondering/hoping as well. Would be fantastic if they built in the resources to be able to mod in the goblin race with full weapon and armor selection for at least a few classes.
I don't personally see any reason to go through that much effort and expense. It's fine the way it is. The point was to update these classics so they would run on a modern system and add little bit of spice to each one, not totally redesign them so they'd be unrecognizable. Frankly I would like them less if they did that...
Besides, their contract was extremely limiting anyway.
Perhaps I should clarify, I'm not suggesting they should spend a huge amount of extra time at this stage of development adding a full weapon and armor set to the goblin class, I'm wondering if they've already edited the goblin sprite to add in a couple of extra weapons (kinda like how the already EE included 1pp mod worked), since otherwise M’Khiin would have an utterly ridiculous equipment selection, and I can't think how else they could have gotten around that.
Usually I don't mind the existing graphics. I'd LIKE new ones, sure, but I accept there would be far too much work involved to make it viable at this stage. It's the kinda thing that would have had to have been done when they started development of BG1:EE anyway, if they were going to do it.
Any other ideas for how M’Khiin Grubdoubler would work with only two or three weapons? Does the goblin sprite have more options than I'm remembering? As I've said I don't think she can even use the weapon in her portrait picture otherwise!
Any other ideas for how M’Khiin Grubdoubler would work with only two or three weapons? Does the goblin sprite have more options than I'm remembering? As I've said I don't think she can even use the weapon in her portrait picture otherwise!
Just having a little tinker around they do indeed only seem to have the bow and axe/shield variant with either the brown regular armour or a bluish black elite one. I'd say they'd have a work around for that I would think, if they are going to use one as a main character one would expect it to have working animations and weapons and armour that her class can use having an animation. As well as having an inventory model for the Goblins and various character sheet entries.
If it wasn't 2d and IE i wouldn't be here playing them.
There is this holy secret that have been forgotten in the last decade, you could call it the 'holy grail' of computer gaming. Most people only whisper about it in the shadows, rarely mentioned in public, it is dangerous to do so, you see. But today i will share this small piece of information, and take the public shame and laugh that comes with it.
Story, Gameplay, Imagination -> Graphic.
People need to stop complaining about the graphic. To gain something you have to give something in return, to sacrifice something. And what do you think games sacrifice for awesome graphics? Story, Gameplay and a way for the player to use his/her imagination.
Does that mean you wouldn't play a BG3 if it uses D&D5 and IE? @SionIV
I might be able to live with the D&D5 if it's in IE and they keep the isometric view. But to be honest I have a feeling that BG3 will only be a Baldur's Gate by name, and most people will get disappointed. I don't want them to make Baldur's Gate 3 mainstream, and I'm afraid that is going to happen, because people don't play games like Baldur's Gate today, people can't stomach a difficult or challenging game. What is most likely going to happen is we'll get Baldur's Gate lite with better graphics and more voice acting.
After IWD:EE i do have more faith in Beamdog and i think they have done a great job. But they are not going to be able to make Baldur's Gate 3 even close to the original, no one can do that, not the way people make games today. I just hope that if they do make Baldur's Gate 3, they won't go down with it. Not trying to be negative towards beamdog, love you guys to bits for giving me IWD:EE, but I just wouldn't trust anyone with Baldur's Gate 3. They should instead focus on making their own game, in their own world. I'll be first in line to hand over my money to them if they start on their own franchise.
Does that mean you wouldn't play a BG3 if it uses D&D5 and IE? @SionIV
Hell, I'd play it, and 5E annoys me for not allowing you to pick feats until 4th level or later. Feats and other choice-intensive forms of character progression are one of my favorite aspects of post-3E D&D. I think it speaks to the quality of the old Baldur's Gate games that I still go back to them despite the lack of choices in your progression offered by later editions.
I'd live with a 5E isometric D&D game quite easily, even though I'd prefer a 4E or Pathfinder one. But, when it comes to pen and paper shenanigans, I likely wouldn't play a 5E game unless the rest of my friends were really into it.
Honestly, I thought that the new areas from the EE (especially the first wild forest where Neera is waiting for you at night!) were VERY beautiful!
I agree that the sprites look quite ugly, but I think that the background more than offsets it.
If Beamdog did the areas in SoD using the same/similar techniques as for the new areas in BG2:EE, then I am sure we will have more than enough eye candy.
I've just finally got around to starting Pillars of Eternity, and I find it amazing how well the 3d model avatars blend in with the 2d background. Even on my 1080p TV, where you can zoom in close enough to start seeing the pixels from the background, the fact that the characters remain crisp and pretty makes such a massive difference to the overall visual quality that now I can only pine for the Baldur's Gate series to get the same treatment.
Really, I was glad when the Enhanced Editions came out, I am not someone that hated them, but I did not buy them because I have already bought so many copies of these games over the years and played them all to death, all modded up, kitted up etc, that EE really had very little to offer me - zooming, coloured pc circles, a couple of new areas... not enough to make me go "Wow, I have to buy all these games again for the fifth time"
But I don't care what anyone here says about Graphics being more important than Gameplay. The gameplay of this series is already spot on, top notch, it never needed to be changed and probably never will. But the art has not aged well in certain ways. If they can improve it, then they should, and if they did create a bunch of 3d models based on the classic old school 2nd edition monster manual, but in lovely high definition, then I would literally punch fistfuls of money into my computer screen in order to obtain them.
That is the killer feature that would convince me to buy, without it, I just look at it and think 'meh, I already get pretty much the same thing after installing all the mods'. I'm shallow, I want shiny new graphics, and I am god damn proud to admit it, and I am sure thousands of other people would be all over the Enhanced Editions like flies on shit if Beamdog did this, because that would pretty much but the visuals in the same league as PoE. That would be giving this fantastic series an Enhancement to really be proud of, not just fiddling with the interface and calling it done. `
I hope go to kickstarter. There is a lot of D&D people waiting for that next great D&D game we have not got since IE games. ToEE and NWN 1 and 2 were decent but not great. I will not even mention other tries at D&D in that time including that terrible product coming out this year.
I don't personally see any reason to go through that much effort and expense. It's fine the way it is. The point was to update these classics so they would run on a modern system and add little bit of spice to each one, not totally redesign them so they'd be unrecognizable. Frankly I would like them less if they did that...
I agree. The BG and IWD series and Torment offer a huge variety of sprites that is probably on par with a Monster Manual.
Personally, I don't mind if they use old sprites with a different colour for variations of monsters. For instance, I liked the half-goblin warriors in IWD II who were in fact 'just' green coloured dwarves with halberds.
Comments
Death to the disbeliever!
Could you take your self-entitlement elsewhere, please?
Sure it is obviously aged and not up-to-date, but compare it with the 3D games that came after.
I'm currently playing around with NWN1 (when I get bored at BG1 =P) and sheesh, it looks worse than the
much older BG. I think the 2D models just stop aging after a while
But 3D? that stuff can look bad (depending on style) 3-4 years after it came out!
The second good point about the IE is.. it runs on nearly everything. Even people who have left the
computer-gaming scene and just have office computers or older models can enjoy the game with no
drawbacks. So yeah, I hope they keep using either the infinity engine or another similiar engine,
because these games are enjoyable in 2D, stay enjoyable for decades and can be played by everyone
who has a computer, regardless of the graphic card.
so depending on how many sprites are made, their resolution, and how detailed the animations are determine how much work 2D is.
3D is determined by how seamlessly you want the sprites, the polygons the sprite is made of (more polygons is easier to make), how individual you want the sprites (you can reuse parts in various ways), special effects like LoD (level of detail), and how good the graphics engine is (how efficient it is resource wise as well as how good the graphics look).
so basically the number of sprites is the big determining factor as to how costly 2D is, while 3D has a big investment up front in the engine, but tends to have less cost per sprite. in the early days of 3D however there was a process of making 2D sprites cheaper to produce than they were previously. this method was to have 3D models, which are not intended to be in the game, which goes through the animations and such and 'snapshots' are taken which are then used as 2D sprites.
this hybrid method was what the IE games used, and making sprites was vastly cheaper than making them than the previous methods. if the EE games were to redo the sprites, this is the most likely method. however without the original 3D models they would have to recreate them, then check if they matched up with the originals (and redo them until the do match up). then they can go through the process of taking 'snapshots' in order to make hi res sprites. keep in mind that the high res sprites will show flaws in the base 3D model and thus the 3D model will need to be decent quality.
now the IE games reused in game sprites alot, at least within its own game. the EE games reuse assets from the IE games, and do so within a single 'super' engine (each game doesn't use a modified version of the base engine like the IE games do). so any work that gets done can use assets from a different game and thus end up with a 'new' sprite (as far as that one game is concerned compared to the original). this gives the option of not making new sprites at all (or at the very least not having to make a large portion of sprites).
so the argument for better sprites isn't just a matter of if it is a new game, but how much totally brand new sprites are being created vs. reusing old assets for 'new' sprites and how forgiving is the community towards failures to match the old look. after that you can then begin to get an idea of how much the extra cost will be for 2D and 3D sprites.
given that the old IE games have good graphics that are simply old (they have aged well, but they are quite old) that sets the bar fairly high for any attempts at redoing sprites. now given that by reusing old assets they can have a fairly robust array of 'free' sprites there is very little need to make new ones to actually make a game (let alone an expansion). so as long as they keep graphical quality roughly the same they can forgo 90% of sprite costs. with all of that taken into account, the best time to make a large amount of sprites is with a brand new game (BG3), which once you have an experienced team for doing sprites you can keep them on and redo all the sprites in all the games.
overall in order to get the graphics right, given that the original BG team had 16 people, i'd estimate a team size between 20-30 people to get it done in about 4-6 years (all games, including BG3 and PS:TEE). to make that feasible they'd pretty much have to double the sales from updated sprites alone, and hope the sprites age just as well as the old ones as they sprites will be old by the time they finish.
I personally have a very wide range of liked rpg's. Starting from games like Shadows of Mordor (barely an rpg), through Skyrim/Witcher, through DA:I (didn't like previous DA games too much though), then Pillars (though it felt a bit like early NWN games), all the way to the EE games.
Would they be able to redraw some extra weapons or something, like replace a swinging axe with a swinging dagger/club? Fixing one creature animation might be doable whereas every playable race / class might not be. Didn't a developer say they'd done some monster animation tweaks?
Besides, their contract was extremely limiting anyway. Ahahaha hahah ahh that made me laugh far more then it should have. "NO ONE will notice it's a gnome, Shut up and make it green!"
Usually I don't mind the existing graphics. I'd LIKE new ones, sure, but I accept there would be far too much work involved to make it viable at this stage. It's the kinda thing that would have had to have been done when they started development of BG1:EE anyway, if they were going to do it.
Any other ideas for how M’Khiin Grubdoubler would work with only two or three weapons? Does the goblin sprite have more options than I'm remembering? As I've said I don't think she can even use the weapon in her portrait picture otherwise!
Angry mummies are not pleasant. . . :P
Just having a little tinker around they do indeed only seem to have the bow and axe/shield variant with either the brown regular armour or a bluish black elite one. I'd say they'd have a work around for that I would think, if they are going to use one as a main character one would expect it to have working animations and weapons and armour that her class can use having an animation. As well as having an inventory model for the Goblins and various character sheet entries.
However, if it was too much pain in the ass, it would be a suitable short cut imo, however, others may get thier pantalettes in a knot over it.
The leaked screenshot had a regular goblin animation though, unarmed, which would also be suitable, but once again knotted pantalettes for others.
There is this holy secret that have been forgotten in the last decade, you could call it the 'holy grail' of computer gaming. Most people only whisper about it in the shadows, rarely mentioned in public, it is dangerous to do so, you see. But today i will share this small piece of information, and take the public shame and laugh that comes with it.
Story, Gameplay, Imagination -> Graphic.
People need to stop complaining about the graphic. To gain something you have to give something in return, to sacrifice something. And what do you think games sacrifice for awesome graphics? Story, Gameplay and a way for the player to use his/her imagination.
After IWD:EE i do have more faith in Beamdog and i think they have done a great job. But they are not going to be able to make Baldur's Gate 3 even close to the original, no one can do that, not the way people make games today. I just hope that if they do make Baldur's Gate 3, they won't go down with it. Not trying to be negative towards beamdog, love you guys to bits for giving me IWD:EE, but I just wouldn't trust anyone with Baldur's Gate 3. They should instead focus on making their own game, in their own world. I'll be first in line to hand over my money to them if they start on their own franchise.
I'd live with a 5E isometric D&D game quite easily, even though I'd prefer a 4E or Pathfinder one. But, when it comes to pen and paper shenanigans, I likely wouldn't play a 5E game unless the rest of my friends were really into it.
I doubt this... It would look like a gnome zombie and cause confusion.
I agree that the sprites look quite ugly, but I think that the background more than offsets it.
If Beamdog did the areas in SoD using the same/similar techniques as for the new areas in BG2:EE, then I am sure we will have more than enough eye candy.
Really, I was glad when the Enhanced Editions came out, I am not someone that hated them, but I did not buy them because I have already bought so many copies of these games over the years and played them all to death, all modded up, kitted up etc, that EE really had very little to offer me - zooming, coloured pc circles, a couple of new areas... not enough to make me go "Wow, I have to buy all these games again for the fifth time"
But I don't care what anyone here says about Graphics being more important than Gameplay. The gameplay of this series is already spot on, top notch, it never needed to be changed and probably never will. But the art has not aged well in certain ways. If they can improve it, then they should, and if they did create a bunch of 3d models based on the classic old school 2nd edition monster manual, but in lovely high definition, then I would literally punch fistfuls of money into my computer screen in order to obtain them.
That is the killer feature that would convince me to buy, without it, I just look at it and think 'meh, I already get pretty much the same thing after installing all the mods'. I'm shallow, I want shiny new graphics, and I am god damn proud to admit it, and I am sure thousands of other people would be all over the Enhanced Editions like flies on shit if Beamdog did this, because that would pretty much but the visuals in the same league as PoE. That would be giving this fantastic series an Enhancement to really be proud of, not just fiddling with the interface and calling it done. `
It's just that, it's out of their budget at this point still.
Which makes me nervous though, about what will they do about their budget when they need to make something from the ground up.
There is a lot of D&D people waiting for that next great D&D game we have not got since IE games. ToEE and NWN 1 and 2 were decent but not great. I will not even mention other tries at D&D in that time including that terrible product coming out this year.
Personally, I don't mind if they use old sprites with a different colour for variations of monsters. For instance, I liked the half-goblin warriors in IWD II who were in fact 'just' green coloured dwarves with halberds.