Skip to content

Should BG2:EE include the "Ascension" mod by David Gaider?

11011121416

Comments

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    shawne said:

    AHF said:

    Your statement is incomplete about Sarevok. He will betray you even if you don't force him into a geas if you don't do other things to make him happy.

    Not if you're the same alignment, which is what @Arcalian was referring to: if you're both Evil, all you need to do is agree with him when he says you should seize Bhaal's power (which is what you're intending to do anyway). If you're Good and you convert Sarevok to Chaotic Good, the same holds true.
    If you are neutral he will always turn on you.

    If you are evil and don't select the right dialogue options, he will turn on you.

    If you are good and don't convert him, he will turn on you.

    That is why @Arcalian's statement saying it turned on the geas was incomplete.

    Either way, it is content that some people don't like.
  • StradlinStradlin Member Posts: 142
    edited February 2013
    AHF said:

    shawne said:

    Arcalian said:

    If Ascension is mandatory i won't play TOBEE.

    It's not even the damn difficulty. Our old friend CLUA takes care of that part. It's also Sarevok turning on my evil character and Imoen turning into the slayer. No. Just no.

    Err... if Sarevok betrayed you, it's because you forced him into a geas. If you accept his services without question, he'll remain loyal. And Imoen's transformation is temporary.
    Your statement is incomplete about Sarevok. He will betray you even if you don't force him into a geas if you don't do other things to make him happy.

    Either way, it is among the content that some people don't like.
    I found this SO awesome. My 1st run through BG2 with Ascnesion featured Sarevok betraying my evil playerchar, Imoen somehow dying by mistake whilst as slayer and Bodhi refusing to fight with me. I was thoroughly, utterly fucked. Being thoroughly, utterly fucked is a condition that has usually been made impossible to reach in modern RPGs. In modern RPGs, everything is always safe now. You can't make real mistakes;modern game does not try to beat you but rather, wants nothing but lose to you in an entertaining fashion. It never puts you in unfair situations where you realize you've made actual mistakes.

    It is sometimes good to remember why we are here. Baldur's Gate is a breath of old air from world that moved on. It carries danger and an occasional unfair moment. It occasionally gives you an opportunity to figure things out, make mistakes and pay dearly for mistakes. These are grand and rare things to have in video games these days. These are things most here( I dare guess) have come to miss and appreciate. Arguing Ascension is terribad because of these things is saddening. "Oh no. Last boss in massive, epic saga is actually difficult fight with odds against me??? What is this, 2001? "

    But yeah maybe it is more fun to kill couple of beholders repeatedly?

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    Stradlin said:

    AHF said:

    shawne said:

    Arcalian said:

    If Ascension is mandatory i won't play TOBEE.

    It's not even the damn difficulty. Our old friend CLUA takes care of that part. It's also Sarevok turning on my evil character and Imoen turning into the slayer. No. Just no.

    Err... if Sarevok betrayed you, it's because you forced him into a geas. If you accept his services without question, he'll remain loyal. And Imoen's transformation is temporary.
    Your statement is incomplete about Sarevok. He will betray you even if you don't force him into a geas if you don't do other things to make him happy.

    Either way, it is among the content that some people don't like.
    I found this SO awesome. My 1st run through BG2 with Ascnesion featured Sarevok betraying my evil playerchar, Imoen somehow dying by mistake whilst as slayer and Bodhi refusing to fight with me. I was thoroughly, utterly fucked. Being thoroughly, utterly fucked is a condition that has usually been made impossible to reach in modern RPGs. In modern RPGs, everything is always safe now. You can't make real mistakes;modern game does not try to beat you but rather, wants nothing but lose to you in an entertaining fashion. It never puts you in unfair situations where you realize you've made actual mistakes.

    It is sometimes good to remember why we are here. Baldur's Gate is a breath of old air from world that moved on. It carries danger and an occasional unfair moment. It occasionally gives you an opportunity to figure things out, make mistakes and pay dearly for mistakes. These are grand and rare things to have in video games these days. These are things most here( I dare guess) have come to miss and appreciate. Arguing Ascension is terribad because of these things is saddening. "Oh no. Last boss in massive, epic saga is actually difficult fight with odds against me??? What is this, 2001? "

    But yeah maybe it is more fun to kill couple of beholders repeatedly?

    The point is that opinions and mileage varies. I am in the boat of those who like the full Ascension implementation. However, that is not the game the original developers made nor the game any of us should expect from BG2:EE. In the theoretical world of whether we should require this mod content to be part of BG2:EE, I see only upside to a DLC version (even if people on multiplayer have to use the same version of this DLC) where people who think it is "terribad" don't have to use it and those who love it can use it all and those who like only parts of the mod can take those parts (less than 40% of people wanted the whole thing).

    I like the Sarevok part of the storyline but others don't. I think Ascension is superior to the base game (albeit not perfect) but I like other mods that are much less popular.

    In the absence of consensus (less than 40% support any particular implementation), I would give people the option to install it the way they want.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @AHF: Again, the problem with the "optional install" solution is precisely what @Zeckul pointed out: you're assuming that Ascension can be independently installed onto BG2:EE. To say that mod implementation has been problematic thus far is an understatement (especially given the way updates work) - it's more likely that if Beamdog doesn't integrate Ascension into the game, it won't be compatible: not at launch, possibly not ever. So if the choice is between Ascension or vanilla ToB as the default ending, I would choose Ascension purely for its story-related content: it's a much more satisfying and thematically appropriate ending.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    For me, the issue is the players who HAVEN'T played ToB before. Do have them feel let down by a lackluster and generic climax to their epic saga, or do you give them a truly epic, story driven ending where their choices really matter?

    Ascension needs to be the default option, with the original ending as an option or mod.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    Sweet topic. People who were always saying "give us opportunity to chose!" when reffering to implementation of new, often controversial content, now are about to force Ascension mod to other's people throats. Nice from them. Of course, no matter how much I would have tried, I couldn't ever explain to them that I don't want to be forced to powerbuild just to finish goddamn game. No, that one is out of question.

    There are two things, however, that are very reassuring.
    1. There is no democracy regarding future content of BG2:EE. Finally, decisions will be made by Overhaul, not by forum users. Users can do as much as suggest some changes.
    2. image
    Even if improved battles are going to be made less difficult, contract limitations still exists. As sucky contract as it is, it comes in handy at times like this.

    While I admit that some Ascension content is great, there is some things that I just don't like about this mod and I don't want to see it in final game, forced throught my throat.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,675
    edited February 2013
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Improving the Slayer form? Hmm, I could've sworn I used a mod that... oh, wait, here it is:

    The Slayer form that the player picks up in Spellhold all the way back in BG2 now upgrades. It does so when you exceed 2 million, 4 million and 6 million XP. The upgrades get considerably stronger and deadlier, and one big change you will notice is that occasionally you will lose control over yourself. The Slayer can sometimes go berserk and will attack the nearest target... this can last one round or go on for several... although there will always be a respite in the very last round before you take too much damage. The last upgrade gives the player the option to become the Ravager... the ultimate incarnation of murder... which is incredibly powerful but also the most difficult form to control.

    -Ascension readme
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    edited February 2013
    @Bhaaldog
    I haven't asked for over the top final fight or goddamn high difficulty level. All I wanted is to Slayer become more usefull instead of being totally useless. Guess I asked too much. Also, I know that improving Slayer also was part of Ascension, but I never asked it to be done exactly like Gaider did,


    It was also request made on like, two weeks from launching this forum. Basically BEFORE I was aware of contract Overhaul made. Therefore, if you want to accuse me of being hypocritical, then you have failed. Miserably.
    Post edited by O_Bruce on
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited February 2013
    @ZelgadisGW: No one's disagreeing with you that contract limitations exist. However, Trent Oster has gone on record saying they're "interested in it" and apparently he and David Gaider had a confab last month (this is all from his Twitter posts), so clearly the possibility does exist. The purpose of this post is simply for people to voice support (or objections) to the inclusion of Ascension. Difficulty levels can be tweaked, that's a mechanical aspect the player can manipulate anyway - story content isn't quite as easy to get into the game. And with all due respect to your views on how things should be done, I rather think David Gaider's opinion might carry a bit more weight since he bloody well took part in making the game.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    shawne said:

    @AHF: Again, the problem with the "optional install" solution is precisely what @Zeckul pointed out: you're assuming that Ascension can be independently installed onto BG2:EE. To say that mod implementation has been problematic thus far is an understatement (especially given the way updates work) - it's more likely that if Beamdog doesn't integrate Ascension into the game, it won't be compatible: not at launch, possibly not ever. So if the choice is between Ascension or vanilla ToB as the default ending, I would choose Ascension purely for its story-related content: it's a much more satisfying and thematically appropriate ending.

    Yes - I am assuming it can be DLC. I have seen no suggestion that it can't.

    The main hurdle to clear would seem to be WoTC/Atari, etc.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    @shawne If I understood it well, Trent wants to break the contract. That's so nice from him. Implementing this mod violates contract, regardless if possibility exists. Adding few dialogues to original NPCs (ala. BG1 NPC project) is violating the contract too much, but implementing big mod such as Ascension is apparently just like walk in the park...
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    AHF said:

    Yes - I am assuming it can be DLC. I have seen no suggestion that it can't.

    The main hurdle to clear would seem to be WoTC/Atari, etc.

    Granted that I'm no technical expert, but here's how I see things: to make Ascension an optional DLC, Beamdog would have to package it as such - free, of course, because profiting from a free mod with multiple authors is bad juju even if said authors explicitly give their consent.

    Then you have implementation. If BG2:EE updates the way BG:EE does, it overwrites old files with updated ones. So either players with the DLC installed will have to reinstall it every time a patch comes out, or the devs will need to come up with some way of isolating the Ascension-related files while updating everything else (a process that could only serve to cause problems for the DLC, since some bugfixes are universal rather than area/character-related).
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239

    @shawne If I understood it well, Trent wants to break the contract. That's so nice from him. Implementing this mod violates contract, regardless if possibility exists. Adding few dialogues to original NPCs (ala. BG1 NPC project) is violating the contract too much, but implementing big mod such as Ascension is apparently just like walk in the park...

    The difference being that the BG1 NPC Project, while very well-written and practically essential for any BG1 run, has no official support from any of the game's staff. And Ascension does: the mod readme begins with This is David Gaider's Ascension Mod repackaged in WeiDU format by Westley Weimer. All praise for the content goes to Gaider, all blame for any bugs goes to Weimer. Whether this is an accurate assessment of Gaider's contribution has been called into question before, but I leave that discussion to people who were actually there when it was being developed.

    Regardless, this is what sets Ascension apart from other mods, and why that may set it outside contractual limitations: it's the only "unofficial content" that ToB's senior designer was either directly involved in creating or, at the very least, provided some form of oversight and explicit approval.
  • RedGuardRedGuard Member Posts: 672
    Bhaaldog said:



    Can you guarantee it will be a cross platform mod though? Can you also guarantee there would be support for that mod?

    Of course I can't. Nor is it a big concern to me. That doesn't really impact on my argument. I like many others who bought BG:EE and are awaiting the release of BG2:EE did so because Beamdog/Overhaul advertised the EE versions as largely the same core experience and story with some new features, not a rewritten story and gameplay. I feel we've been through this already with the 'resurrect Dynaheir/change the cannon party' threads. Overhaul set out a specific vision that a lot of us signed up for and Ascension is a large departure from much of that.

    Your argument is "I don't know if I can install this mod so I would like to force it on the whole user base". However BG2EE was being advertised as is to most potential customers. Changing it now changes the deal Beamdog/Overhaul were originally offering and I don't think that's a great idea to force on people because some of the more hardcore of the user base advocate it.

    I'm sorry you haven't had much luck in the forums you've directed your queries in various forums. Though I'm sympathetic, that doesn't mean I'm willing to see the original vision of BG2:EE compromised so only those who preferred Ascension are happy and ruin the experience for others.
    Bhaaldog said:

    Purchasable DLC which is supported is therefore a desirable option.

    Then ask for that rather than Ascension in ToB as standard.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited February 2013
    @RedGuard: The lines get very, very blurred when you start talking about the "original vision" of BG2, or any game for that matter.

    Consider: The impetus for Ascension's creation is David Gaider's own statement that ToB, as it originally stood, does not fully represent the vision of the game's design team: "I remember wishing that we had had the time to tinker with it more. At Bioware we never seemed to have enough time to tinker with the Infinity Engine scripting language as much as I might have liked. With better AI and some leisurely time spent considering various options, the ending might have been more fully realized."

    Now, you can take the hardline stance that the finalized product is the only thing that matters, and that's fine... except that the Enhanced Edition already contains components such as the Black Pits and new kits (more than just one if that dialog.tlk text is to be taken at face value) that were not in the original game. There have been arguments on this very forum, for example, that Sorcerers and Barbarians are simply overpowered for BG1 (or, conversely, that Monks are underpowered).

    And there's another point to think about: "Mass Effect 3". Specifically, the Extended Cut which completely expanded (and, in some cases, rewrote) the controversial ending. Now, as you may know, this was released as DLC - because it was created after the game was released, not because the designers wanted the player to choose whether to see that content or not. In fact, the Wii U version - the only port that came out after the EC - will have the Extended Cut fully integrated into the game. That is the ending which reflects the design team's vision (or, in a more cynical light, it's the ending that reflects the design team's double vision after their fanbase collectively slapped them upside their collective face).

    Ascension can't quite reach for the same pedigree; it's not like the entire ToB squad sat down and contributed ideas or code or whatnot. All we have is David Gaider's input. But that should still count for something when it comes to evaluating what an "Enhanced" version of BG2 should contain.
  • RedGuardRedGuard Member Posts: 672
    edited February 2013
    @Shawne No it doesn't. That is how it was released and that is largely how it was advertised for BG2:EE. It is not a hardline stance to expect that to still be the case, despite how you'd like to characterise it.

    I would liked to have seen a full BG3 over the ToB expansion at the time, but that is what we got and all things considered I think it is best to release that version rather than rewrite history and pretend Ascension is actually meant to be cannon or that everyone loves it.

    And since you refer to Black Pits and such, I did imply that those do not rewrite the original game. Maybe I should have been more clear on that. I'm all for new content and quests etc, but I'm not ok with rewriting the story because some hardcore Ascension fans want it.

    Also, ME3 didn't really rewrite the endings. They essentially extended on what was already there in the original release version. I followed that farce for a bit and while I wasn't happy with the ending myself, I wasn't about to call for them to erase the Starkid/AI and pretend it was all indoctrination theory or some other handwavey macguffin. Not to mention that was a different situation, one that was the result after a massive fan outcry. Apples and oranges, really.

    You mention Gaider, but that doesn't stop it from being a fan mod. It's not official and it's not cut content and not all of it is brilliant.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    @shawne
    Enlighten me, former BG2 developers' approval have any impact on changes that contract restricts? Because if not, the fact of David Gaider worked on Ascension means absolutely nothing. Non-official content or mod, it's one and the same. Sorry, but that's the truth.

    For now, the only reasonable argument for putting *this* in game is that no one can guarantee cross/multi-platform mod version. Aside from that, there is absolutely nothing.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @RedGuard: Okay. I completely disagree, but that's how you feel and I doubt further debate is going to change anything. I'm sure everyone on this thread has made their opinions clear one way or another, so I'm content to leave it in the devs' hands.

    Speaking only for myself, if Ascension (or something like it - no one has even considered that Beamdog could integrate Ascension and then tweak it to their specifications) comes with BG2:EE, I'll be a very happy player; if it's yet another net improvement that I have to wait for because the modding community needs to redo all their hard work... then I'll wait. Having played through ToB with "Ascension" installed, I have absolutely no intention of going back to the dissatisfying and incomplete conclusion the original version offers.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited February 2013
    @ZelgadisGW: Seeing as how I've never read the contract in question - and I wouldn't know what to do with it if I had, as I'm not a lawyer - I can't say for sure that it matters. I also can't say for sure that it doesn't. Atari's gone belly-up, does that change things? BG:EE sold moderately well by all accounts, does that change things? David Gaider, who is still employed at BioWare, who presumably are part of this contract, might have given his approval, perhaps that changes things? I don't know. And unless you were there during contract negotiations, you don't know either. I suggest we let the matter lie, the arguments are just going in circles now.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    @shawne
    Fair enough.
  • ChippyChippy Member Posts: 241
    MIsplaced a 'like' there; as long as I can still play the ending where 2 party members remain alive and nobody betrays me, it's all (and was) good.
  • RedGuardRedGuard Member Posts: 672
    shawne said:

    @RedGuard: Okay. I completely disagree, but that's how you feel and I doubt further debate is going to change anything. I'm sure everyone on this thread has made their opinions clear one way or another, so I'm content to leave it in the devs' hands.

    @Shawne Agreed. I think the points have been largely exhausted by now.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,675
    edited February 2013
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • RedGuardRedGuard Member Posts: 672
    @Bhaaldog My bad. I was lumping you in with other people on that point.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    edited February 2013
    @Bhaaldog
    Now that you mention it, pal, every feature request on this forums is forced. Therefore Overhaul should just close antire feature request section.... Logical as hell.

    The difference between us is that I wanted to fix a broken part of the game, while you want to broke the game for anyone less skilled than yourself. On the other hand, now I know that my request back then can't probably be made. Just like yours here.

    I'm critical person and I have a right to judge. You have this right too. So stop saying bullshit.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
This discussion has been closed.