And what the hell was going on with the C/R change? Everyone preach that you can change the INI file or mod your game to get it back, I ask why you removed it to start with?
It was a bug. The devs in control of the engine finally manage to (and cared enough to) fix the bug. Bioware never bothered to do patches for bug fixing le this. Not only did Beamdog fix a longstanding bug, they added an .ini option to play the old way, going out of their way just for the benefit of players like you. In my book, that makes them pretty classy.
Agreed. You might as well be complaining that the cloudkill wands no longer ignore magic resistance. Bug got fixed. Glad to see it!
I like the Improved AI/GUI that will come with SoD but there are some changes i wouldn´t like if beamdog make those changes.
1. The IWD EE Version of ADHW. Who wants ADHW when it´s not partyfriendly? 2. The IWD EE Version of Animate Death is also really crappy. 3. That HP Bar i turn off. I am not playing World of Warcraft or something like that^^
Buffing Druid and Bard would be n1 i think. But to far away from the original is something i wouldn´t enjoy.
I can empathize with @SionIV, though I am certainly a fan of Beamdog's work for one main reason: the fact that they made the EEs in the first place.
It was a hard proposition to begin with, securing the rights, dealing with the 15-year old engine, the loss of original assets, fan expectations... it's a wonder it actually got made if you ask me.
I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the team for making it possible for me to keep playing my favorite games for years to come. Please take that as a disclaimer for everything I say from this point on.
Of course, when you take on a project this ambitious, there's no way you're not going to make a few mistakes. At least one of these is indisputable - releasing BG:EE before it was in ideal shape - so much so that they own up to it.
Others are more of a matter of opinion. I will list them here knowing that general consensus may not agree with me.
1. The Black Pits
Look, maybe making the Black Pits was a necessary exercise. I don't know, I wasn't there. And I'll concede that it's really well-written, engaging, fun and everything. Plus, I really like Baeloth.
But did we *really* need a stand-alone semi-arena mode that's in no way related to the main story?
This thing certainly took a lot of talent and resources. Judging from how little attention it actually got, I can't help but think that it ended up being sort of a waste.
In hindsight, maybe they should have spent those man-hours and resources either polishing the game (making for a better initial release) or expanding/improving the original campaign, which leads me to the next point:
2. Lack of concern with seamless integration of the new NPCs
I remember some dude on Twitter back in 2012 asking Trent Oster if they were getting rid of the infamous "YOU MUST GATHER YOUR PARTY BEFORE VENTURING FORTH" voice. His answer was (I'm paraphrasing) "that's *canon* and it's got to stay."
I agree completely. It was a reassuring position and I feel it's paid off. All in all, the EEs are faithful to the original game's spirit. The UI and engine improvements are certainly good enough to make you not want to go back. The new items and kits are great - they feel like they've been there all along.
So why do the new NPCs stick out like sore thumbs?
Imagine you're completely new to Baldur's Gate. You have never played the original games and the names Minsc and Boo mean nothing to you.
After beating the game, wouldn't it feel odd that out of almost thirty NPCs you meet, only three of them feel fleshed out? Why is that so?
Yeah, I understand that they were prevented from touching the original companions. That doesn't mean the new ones are supposed to take the spotlight. Ultimately, all you're doing is making players confused or leading them to erroneously think that Neera, Dorn and Rasaad are somehow more important or integral to the story than the other ones.
"But players like banters, quests and romances! What's wrong with giving them what they want?" Well, voice in my head, the thing is: consistency is important.
Originally, we had 25 NPCs developed only to a certain extent. Like it or not, that's the standard set by the game. One could argue that BG2 sets a better standard, but it doesn't really matter because that's ultimately a separate game.
When you slap onto BG1 three new NPCs that have way more complex/fleshed-out personalities and quests, you're changing that standard. You're raising the bar for the original ones whilst being unable to bring them up to speed.
The saddest part is, they didn't even need all of that to make an impression. We were sold on Imoen and Minsc and Edwin and Alora and everyone else just fine. What made you guys think we wouldn't embrace the new NPCs unless you gave them the BG2 treatment *before* we met them again in BG2?
3. The new movies
Guys, I would take back everything I have said so far if the devs would admit that yes, replacing the old movies was a mistake. That's how passionate I feel about it.
I understand that it may be too late to go back and that as a company it is bad form to discredit/disparage whoever made the new movies but...
Oh, the satisfaction I would get from seeing a blue post that read something like "Yeah, you know what? We should probably have taken the BG2 approach regarding that."
The official justification is that the original movies looked way too dated for modern players. That's kinda baffling, considering pretty much *everything* about these games is dated. The 2D backgrounds. The deprecated version of D&D rules. Hell, even the amount of reading necessary to play casually.
The movies were fine. Anyone who thought that keeping them (crude as they look) now - would present a liability has shown a severe lack of understanding one's audience.
This could all have been forgiven if the company (by then) hadn't ended up being over it's head. People in these boards asked "hey, why are the new cinematics so static?" and the official answer was something like "animation is too expensive". Which ended up also being the answer to why not all movies were being replaced. Which led to them cutting the non-updated movies from the game. Which is cutting content and is NOT COOL, GUYS.
Not to mention the quality. Yes, I know by now I'm way into subjective territory and yes, most of the illustrations that were used are gorgeous but when it comes to the animations, the compromise made in terms of quality shows itself, and it's a sad thing to watch.
The movies which suffered the most are arguably the most important ones: the introduction, the ending, and the arrival at the Friendly Arm. But I'm not going into details as I feel this rant is long enough and I believe I've already made my point.
Conclusion
I hope I didn't come out as hateful. My intention was to be as entertaining/humorous as I can while providing constructive criticism. As I said way back there at the beginning - I'm a Beamdog supporter. Moral, vocal and financial.
Personally I think that creating the Black Pits and especially the Black Pits 2 has helped Beamdog a lot. I'm sure we'll see the results of this in SoD. Judging by the devs' comments about difficult fights in SoD, I think they've used their experience from the Black Pits.
Also, a lot of lines in the Black Pits were fun and well written. I think that they've tested something with characters while creating the Black Pits and we'll again get the results in SoD. The fact that one NPC in SoD is from the Black Pits 2 confirms this to me.
And in the end, if they decide to make a new game, for example, some kind of IWD3 (which has a big focus on good interesting fights), the experience from the Black Pits will help.
They're not "forcing" anyone to do anything, though. You can't have the cake and eat it too: the EEs are Beamdog's version of BG, with all the changes and modifications that that implies. And no one is obligated to buy/play them if they don't want to - the trade-off being that yes, you're going to need the older version. It's a question of what you value more, your choice of modifications or whatever mechanical upgrades Beamdog have made.
I never understood this idiom. Why would I want the cake in the first place if I can't eat it? And why does it have to be a cake? What if I'd rather have pie?
I used to be in your boat, my friend. The idiom, although poorly worded, is telling you that after you eat the cake, you no longer have it. You can't have your cake, eat it, and still have it.
It's actually often used incorrectly. People often times use it to basically say, "Get over it, you can't have everything your way" but it is supposed to be used to say, "You can't simultaneously have two things that are incapable of existing at the same time."
Having your cake and eating it too, in this case, would be owning both BG and BG:EE... so, yes. Yes, you can have it and eat it too.
Wanting your child to become a strong young man (or woman) while simultaneously wishing they would never grow up and move away is a better example.
They're not "forcing" anyone to do anything, though. You can't have the cake and eat it too: the EEs are Beamdog's version of BG, with all the changes and modifications that that implies. And no one is obligated to buy/play them if they don't want to - the trade-off being that yes, you're going to need the older version. It's a question of what you value more, your choice of modifications or whatever mechanical upgrades Beamdog have made.
I never understood this idiom. Why would I want the cake in the first place if I can't eat it? And why does it have to be a cake? What if I'd rather have pie?
I used to be in your boat, my friend. The idiom, although poorly worded, is telling you that after you eat the cake, you no longer have it. You can't have your cake, eat it, and still have it.
It's actually often used incorrectly. People often times use it to basically say, "Get over it, you can't have everything your way" but it is supposed to be used to say, "You can't simultaneously have two things that are incapable of existing at the same time."
Having your cake and eating it too, in this case, would be owning both BG and BG:EE... so, yes. Yes, you can have it and eat it too.
Wanting your child to become a strong young man (or woman) while simultaneously wishing they would never grow up and move away is a better example.
I believe that "have it your way" is exemplifies by the cake-- everyone loves cake (or pie, or fruit if you're not into sweets. Bacon.), and everyone wants to have cake, but you can't eat the whole cake and then have it in your hands. Its really about greed-- kinda like, "You had your piece, now sit down and shut up before I shut your cake hole for you."
It need not be about greed, though. @Wayniac 's example is a perfect illustration of that. Sometimes people want two scenario that cannot simultaneously exist for greedy reasons but sometimes for noble or altruistic reasons (like the parent in his example). The idiom is really about not being able to have two mutually exclusive scenarios at the same time.
In a BG setting, it would be like wanting simultaneously to savor your fond memories of the game while also wanting to experience it for the first time. You can only have one of those scenarios at any given moment in time.
@Kilivitz I for one really liked the new movies and was a bit sad when they did not give BG2:EE the same treatment. Although they could have done a better job making sure none of the movies were cut.
Knowing a lot of people feel strongly about this, it would have been nice if the movies had a toggle switch to pick between new and old.
Comments
1. The IWD EE Version of ADHW. Who wants ADHW when it´s not partyfriendly?
2. The IWD EE Version of Animate Death is also really crappy.
3. That HP Bar i turn off. I am not playing World of Warcraft or something like that^^
Buffing Druid and Bard would be n1 i think. But to far away from the original is something i wouldn´t enjoy.
It was a hard proposition to begin with, securing the rights, dealing with the 15-year old engine, the loss of original assets, fan expectations... it's a wonder it actually got made if you ask me.
I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the team for making it possible for me to keep playing my favorite games for years to come. Please take that as a disclaimer for everything I say from this point on.
Of course, when you take on a project this ambitious, there's no way you're not going to make a few mistakes. At least one of these is indisputable - releasing BG:EE before it was in ideal shape - so much so that they own up to it.
Others are more of a matter of opinion. I will list them here knowing that general consensus may not agree with me.
1. The Black Pits
Look, maybe making the Black Pits was a necessary exercise. I don't know, I wasn't there. And I'll concede that it's really well-written, engaging, fun and everything. Plus, I really like Baeloth.
But did we *really* need a stand-alone semi-arena mode that's in no way related to the main story?
This thing certainly took a lot of talent and resources. Judging from how little attention it actually got, I can't help but think that it ended up being sort of a waste.
In hindsight, maybe they should have spent those man-hours and resources either polishing the game (making for a better initial release) or expanding/improving the original campaign, which leads me to the next point:
2. Lack of concern with seamless integration of the new NPCs
I remember some dude on Twitter back in 2012 asking Trent Oster if they were getting rid of the infamous "YOU MUST GATHER YOUR PARTY BEFORE VENTURING FORTH" voice. His answer was (I'm paraphrasing) "that's *canon* and it's got to stay."
I agree completely. It was a reassuring position and I feel it's paid off. All in all, the EEs are faithful to the original game's spirit. The UI and engine improvements are certainly good enough to make you not want to go back. The new items and kits are great - they feel like they've been there all along.
So why do the new NPCs stick out like sore thumbs?
Imagine you're completely new to Baldur's Gate. You have never played the original games and the names Minsc and Boo mean nothing to you.
After beating the game, wouldn't it feel odd that out of almost thirty NPCs you meet, only three of them feel fleshed out? Why is that so?
Yeah, I understand that they were prevented from touching the original companions. That doesn't mean the new ones are supposed to take the spotlight. Ultimately, all you're doing is making players confused or leading them to erroneously think that Neera, Dorn and Rasaad are somehow more important or integral to the story than the other ones.
"But players like banters, quests and romances! What's wrong with giving them what they want?" Well, voice in my head, the thing is: consistency is important.
Originally, we had 25 NPCs developed only to a certain extent. Like it or not, that's the standard set by the game. One could argue that BG2 sets a better standard, but it doesn't really matter because that's ultimately a separate game.
When you slap onto BG1 three new NPCs that have way more complex/fleshed-out personalities and quests, you're changing that standard. You're raising the bar for the original ones whilst being unable to bring them up to speed.
The saddest part is, they didn't even need all of that to make an impression. We were sold on Imoen and Minsc and Edwin and Alora and everyone else just fine. What made you guys think we wouldn't embrace the new NPCs unless you gave them the BG2 treatment *before* we met them again in BG2?
3. The new movies
Guys, I would take back everything I have said so far if the devs would admit that yes, replacing the old movies was a mistake. That's how passionate I feel about it.
I understand that it may be too late to go back and that as a company it is bad form to discredit/disparage whoever made the new movies but...
Oh, the satisfaction I would get from seeing a blue post that read something like "Yeah, you know what? We should probably have taken the BG2 approach regarding that."
The official justification is that the original movies looked way too dated for modern players. That's kinda baffling, considering pretty much *everything* about these games is dated. The 2D backgrounds. The deprecated version of D&D rules. Hell, even the amount of reading necessary to play casually.
The movies were fine. Anyone who thought that keeping them (crude as they look) now - would present a liability has shown a severe lack of understanding one's audience.
This could all have been forgiven if the company (by then) hadn't ended up being over it's head. People in these boards asked "hey, why are the new cinematics so static?" and the official answer was something like "animation is too expensive". Which ended up also being the answer to why not all movies were being replaced. Which led to them cutting the non-updated movies from the game. Which is cutting content and is NOT COOL, GUYS.
Not to mention the quality. Yes, I know by now I'm way into subjective territory and yes, most of the illustrations that were used are gorgeous but when it comes to the animations, the compromise made in terms of quality shows itself, and it's a sad thing to watch.
The movies which suffered the most are arguably the most important ones: the introduction, the ending, and the arrival at the Friendly Arm. But I'm not going into details as I feel this rant is long enough and I believe I've already made my point.
Conclusion
I hope I didn't come out as hateful. My intention was to be as entertaining/humorous as I can while providing constructive criticism. As I said way back there at the beginning - I'm a Beamdog supporter. Moral, vocal and financial.
But there's no use in being sycophantic, right?
Thanks for reading this far.
Also, a lot of lines in the Black Pits were fun and well written. I think that they've tested something with characters while creating the Black Pits and we'll again get the results in SoD. The fact that one NPC in SoD is from the Black Pits 2 confirms this to me.
And in the end, if they decide to make a new game, for example, some kind of IWD3 (which has a big focus on good interesting fights), the experience from the Black Pits will help.
It's actually often used incorrectly. People often times use it to basically say, "Get over it, you can't have everything your way" but it is supposed to be used to say, "You can't simultaneously have two things that are incapable of existing at the same time."
Having your cake and eating it too, in this case, would be owning both BG and BG:EE... so, yes. Yes, you can have it and eat it too.
Wanting your child to become a strong young man (or woman) while simultaneously wishing they would never grow up and move away is a better example.
In a BG setting, it would be like wanting simultaneously to savor your fond memories of the game while also wanting to experience it for the first time. You can only have one of those scenarios at any given moment in time.
Knowing a lot of people feel strongly about this, it would have been nice if the movies had a toggle switch to pick between new and old.