If I may interject for a moment. Both sides, for and against, have very clear arguments that have been repeated for multiple pages at this point with neither side budging.
Rather than continuing this for another 3 pages, I personally and respectfully request that both sides admit there is no changing the other sides mind and let the debate die down for at least 24 hours. Let the arguments and emotions settle rather than escalating them.
My "dispute" here is not whether or not BG:EE should be released, but rather if Ascension should be a mandatory part of the game, in which I said no. If my dispute where about the Enhanced Edition, I would not have preordered 7 copies. Most of the enhancements are not tampering with the game itself, and even then I'd like to keep that to a minimum. For instance, I will not be using any of the 3 new characters, and may very likely ignore the Black Pit. I may very well go back to the non-EE versions, but it seems like I will be able to play the EE versions like the original with higher resolutions if and likely will decide to ignore the added content.
The large majority of enhancements in BG:EE is the type of enhancements that you currently get with mods: running in the ToB engine, higher resolutions, new NPCs, graphical tweaks, etc. Hell, a lot of the new stuff in there is directly from mods; many fixes are provided by modders themselves. If you are uninterested in these types of improvements then you clearly don't care about there being an Enhanced Edition at all, and there's little point voicing your opinion as to what it should contain.
If I didn't care I would not have purchased this game for seven people, nor would I be here now. For the third, and perhaps fourth time, (And hopefully final, the amount of times I've had to repeat myself here due to people ignoring what I say is getting rather ridiculous) is that it's the price I am willing to pay in order to have people I know enjoy the game.
ATTENTION: "It's the price that I am willing to pay in order to have people I know enjoy the game."
So improving a +3 or +4 sword because everyone else is using a +5 sword is balancing? Because we need more OP items to balance out the rest of the OP items. Because 'it will give you a reason to use that improved weapon now'.
No offense @Metal_Hurlant but if you think what Item/Spell Revisions does is improving weapons/spells to match overpowered ones you either don't know what you're talking about or you just like to bash those mods for the sake of it.
As @Communard and @Shin told you, you can't just nerf everything, because that isn't going to improve an item/spell with no redeeming quality.
Just to add something further. Say you nerf Magic Missile. Then the other level 1 spells are improved by that nerf. ... No need to make improvements to spells when you nerf something because it already benefits from the initial nerf.
Do you really think that nerfing Magic Missile (which btw isn't OP) can make Reflected Image (not to mention Infravision) a good spell? Sometimes I do what you're trying to say, for example slightly nerfing Skull Trap to make Fireball appealing again, but nerfing everything wouldn't really work, it would actually be counterproductive, because then you end up with nothing worth using, instead of multiple choices.
The goal is to bring all items/spells neither at the OP level, nor at the UP one, but in the middle.
Take Sleep for example (one of the few spells where I took some liberty over PnP): - Vanilla Sleep spell is ridiculously overpowerd within BG1 because it has a tremendous save penalty, and doesn't allow targets to wake up, making it a 5th lvl Hold Monster spell on steroids (larger AoE, identical result). Its only downside is that it doesn't affect creatures with more than 5 HD/levels, but while in BG1 that is not a huge problem, in BG2 it means such spell could just as well not exist, because it doesn't work against anyone. How the hell was I supposed to make it viable in BG2 only by nerfing? Do you think making every other 1st lvl spell not work against 99,9% of BG2 creatures would have made Sleep cool again? - what I did was "meeting in the middle" by nerfing it a little for BG1 (no save penalty, targets have a chance to wake up) but making it viable in BG2 (instead of affecting only 5HD or less it works on creatures with as much or less HD than the caster, up to 20HD)
That being said, reducing everything to OP and UP is really sad. Does making flying creatures able to fly over Grease ruins the balance? If creatures turned into squirrels by Polymorph Other are made unable to cast spells, does that make the spell OP? There are hundreds of things we did to improve the gameplay which have nothing to do with nerfing or buffing.
I hope people are seperating this question from the question of whether or not they like ascension. There are lot's of mods and tweaks I like which I don't believe should be included in enhanced edition.
This thread and this forum relates to Baldur's Gate, so I have no intention of turning this into a debate of real-life philosophy. I do not recall stating that I've never given thought to any mod at any time. If I recall, I've mentioned more than once in this thread that I took my time looking into Ascension, and also implied that I am the only of my friends that does not play with mods, which in fact, would impart knowledge of mods such as Ascension, Tutu, etc to me. Not seeking out mods myself does not mean that I close my eyes and stab myself in the ears in an attempt to prevent myself from learning about them.
I've seen and heard enough to know that I am quite happy to play the game in the original form, because that's simply how much I enjoy it. I enjoy playing the game in it's base form, and as odd as it sounds, I enjoy persevering through any errors or bugs in the game, because that's simply how much of a purist I am in this game and it shows how much I love it. While your last question seems to carry some disdain as well as implying that I am more arrogant than I am, the answer to that is "Yes." I am so satisfied with my love of the game in it's base form that I see no need to modify it further. I enjoy reading the same stories over and over. I enjoy playing the same games over and over. There are of course exception to both of those rules of mine, but that's all.
If I am "close-minded" when it comes to my love of this game, it is only because in my narrow vision I see perfection and thus have no desire to broaden it, because there can be no improvement of perfection.
I assure you I meant no disdain by it, nor to imply that you're arrogant. Rather it, along with the quesition about real-life philosophy, were attempts to understand the reasons for what I perceive as stubbornness and close-mindedness - and I don't mean that offensively, it's just how it ultimately comes across. That you find great satisfaction in playing the game in the original state, persevering through errors or bugs as you say, does shed some light on it but doesn't go all the way in explaining it. It actually seems a fair bit akin to religion, something that has to be felt first hand and doesn't really lend itself too well to rational explanation.
I'd also like to clarify that I don't view your position as harmful to others. As stated, you can and should play the game however you want. As for the topic matter of Ascension, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
I hope people are seperating this question from the question of whether or not they like ascension. There are lot's of mods and tweaks I like which I don't believe should be included in enhanced edition.
I agree. I enjoy most aspects of 1pp for instance, but argued against its baseline inclusion because I felt it would take away choice. Ascension on the other hand I view as a special case, more as a patch than a mod, and a representation of how ToB was intended to be.
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
Am I the only person who's actually read the Ascension readme?
The idea for Ascension came from players. The idea that the dev team or Gaider intended this as the actual ToB ending is not true, no matter how may times it gets repeated.
That the lead BG2 writer prefers Ascension over the regular ToB ending is already a huge endorsement; I don't know why people feel the need to exaggerate it.
@CamDawg It would seem like a matter of semantics. It's true that many of the ideas came from elsewhere (Kevin Dorner, etc) and that Gaider states that it's not an official product and even appeals to people to not say things like Ascension is "how it should have been".
However, he also admits to the team not having the kind of time they would have wanted with finishing up and that the vanilla ending wasn't fully realized. And then he calls Ascension his offering of what might have been, presumably if the development team had more time and more resources.
You can view that from various perspectives forever. The inspiration for Ascension didn't start out inside of BioWare, but then, the inspiration for BG likely originally came from an outside source as well, as tends to be the case with most projects. Who ends up putting things together also matters.
@CamDawg It would seem like a matter of semantics. It's true that many of the ideas came from elsewhere (Kevin Dorner, etc) and that Gaider states that it's not an official product and even appeals to people to not say things like Ascension is "how it should have been".
We have assertions that are contradicted by the very document being used to back up those claims with words like "explicit" and "specifically". That's not semantics, it's just wrong.
@CamDawg Well, maybe I jumped into the middle of things here, but:
@Aosaw's statement quoted by you: "David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines."
Quote from the readme: "...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. That's a game designer's fantasy, obviously, especially when you're working within the time-frame of an expansion (which must come out while the game's still on peoples' hard-drives)...but seeing as a mod like this can be done in one's spare time, it doesn't have to be. Consider this my offering of what might have been."
I agree that it's not a specific statement, but the gist of it doesn't seem that different to me.
"What might have been" is nowhere near what's being claimed--that Ascension would have likely been the real ending of ToB, especially when the ideas for Ascension didn't even come from the ToB team but from players.
Again, the lead BG2 writer prefers Ascension to the ending of ToB. Stretching this endorsement into areas not supported by facts does it no favors.
Ascension main act is to change the difficult the main battles, add that will not be an original content modify, as you're just changing fight performance, not history/lore content itself. This surely should be added cos BG2 fights are too easy (sarevok final fight is a lot harder than any of irenicus fight or any of "the five" fights).
The other contents can or cannot hit the original content so i have some reservations:
New slayer forms i believe it's possible (not a change on the skin but on slayer power per level).
New banters between Imoen and Sarevok hit the original content clause, same for rework in epilogues (unfortunally).
He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
It's not stated specifically anywhere in the readme, which we both agree upon.
Alternatively you could read the post from Cuv, one of the Ascension contributors, a bit upthread from the first time this was asserted and debunked.
We agree on the specific part, but I don't see that being the same as claiming the entire statement is way off. It depends on if you want to read everything into a word or look at the overall message.
As for the origin of the ideas, I'm not debating that, just the overall significance of it. If it turned out that the idea for BG originally came from Feargus Urquhart's wife who wasn't an employee, would that make the entire game something different?
LOL Where do all these assumptions come from? I was there and have said on page two what it does and how it came about. @CamDawg is not making this stuff up:D There are no semantics. It's a mod created by David Gaider and the guys at IEEAIS. The idea for the Five came from the Black Isle forums and Kevin suggested that Balthazar being a good guy you should be able to avoid that fight if your PC is good. DG wrote the dlg changes and story outline and most of the AI. After it was begun there was talk of adding more spice to the encounter... so it was suggested that Irenicus be resurrected - Spork wrote Irenicus AI. VZ and KR developed Detectable Spells further for use in it. Xyx helped to refine the AI and taught DG a thing or three. I came up with the Balthazar join idea and wrote his epilogue. @Quitch argued that evil parties needed the same treatment.. and suggested Bohdi be joinable too. Then David Gaider put the whole thing together. Geez. All this stuff happened during production. None of it was what was originally intended but no time. There were no 'assets' laying around that hadnt been incorporated into the original game. That is all Ascension is. The Improved Battles were added to the package later by Wes Weimer. They are seperate (and in my opinion should remain seperate). End of rant. Sorry! Carry on.
My sense about Ascension is that it provides fights like the one in Tales of the Sword Coast (Ac Lec tec the Nabassu) that seem to get silly with what you have to do to win the fight.
That is very good and extensive information, @Cuv, not all of which is in the readme. I obviously won't debate that it happened as you say. Even so, I maintain the line between official and unofficial content is sometimes thin. A patch too is put together with feedback, input and ideas from people in the community, sometimes even on the community's initiative. And as has already been talked about in this thread, the EE is official but contains a lot of features that were someone else's idea or someone else's work.
@Shin Sure and thank you:D Just don't want there to be misconceptions. I understand your position and am not trying to convince anyone one way or the other. It's all still up in the air, and anything is possible.
"What might have been" is nowhere near what's being claimed--that Ascension would have likely been the real ending of ToB, especially when the ideas for Ascension didn't even come from the ToB team but from players.
Again, the lead BG2 writer prefers Ascension to the ending of ToB. Stretching this endorsement into areas not supported by facts does it no favors.
From Gaider's notes we can gather: - That he wished the design team had more time to tinker with the ending - That he wished for a more fully realized ending
While one can argue that there was no intent for the specific, concrete features found in Ascension, there definitely was intent for something like Ascension: in Gaider's words, a "more fully realized ending". Furthermore, although the ideas and realization of the content do not all come from David Gaider, all the features still got David Gaider's approbation as he was the lead designer on this mod. It is ultimately irrelevant who originally came up with the ideas or implemented them; many ideas in the original game probably came from sources external to the design team as well! What makes a feature official is not where the idea comes from, or even who implements it, but simply the fact that it gets approved by the design team and put in the game.
Ascension was directed and approved by the game's lead designer, but not put in the game, perhaps because it didn't make financial sense for the company to support it, perhaps because it arrived too late, perhaps because it still needed some rebalancing to please everyone. It is therefore, "almost but not quite official" content.
Overhaul has now the possibility to elevate this content from "almost but not quite official" to "official" status. To decide whether this is a good idea, one has to consider:
1) What is the purpose of making an Enhanced Edition 2) Ascension's own merits
Baldur’s Gate deserved better. It’s such a fantastic series, and yet it’s largely inaccessible to modern audiences.
The version you can currently buy requires loads of workarounds and mods to get running at an acceptable level, and that’s just not a good experience to our mind. We wanted to bring a classic game to a whole new audience with as little hassle as possible. Combine that with our familiarity with Baldur’s Gate, and it seemed like the obvious choice for our next project.
Our end goal with this project is to leave the Baldur’s Gate community better off than when we arrived. We’re definitely going to do that.
In other words, one of the essentials goals behind making an EE is reducing the game's dependance on mods. One of the obvious ways to go about doing that, is to look at what mods are considered essential by the community, and integrate or re-implement these features, or similar features, into the game. For instance BG:EE will deprecate BGTutu, the widescreen mod, and probably most fixpacks; it'll address the need for more NPCs and content with more NPCs and content of its own.
BG2:EE could address the community's and game's lead designer wish of a more fully realized ending, by integrating the mod that was designed by that same lead designer to fulfill that same wish, and which is first on everyone's install list for ToB, Ascension. That makes sense, doesn't it?
It definitely makes more sense than the other options: - Ship with ToB's original, lackluster ending, perpetuating the reliance on a mod to fill a void - Implement its own, 3rd version of the ending, risking that many players will keep prefering and relying on Ascension anyway, or worse, breaking the mod
2) Ascension's own merits: have been already discussed extensively, so I won't repeat. There is little to no disagreements about its role-playing additions, and while the tougher battles are not for everyone, this can be worked around with intelligent use of the difficulty slider.
Yes it should be included, with tweaks. Any chance you might be able to get the Valygar romance in too? (I know the other collaborator is still about).
@Zeckul I'm not sure why I'm being quoted. I've advanced no arguments for or against the merits of including Ascension, and your argument about Gaider's endorsement is something I've already mentioned--twice.
I'm just trying to debunk the oft-repeated claim that Ascension was planned but not included.
@Anduine also, the notes are one thing, actually trying the mod is another. You might find a description helpful, but how would you know if you liked it if you never actually played with it implemented?
If I do not like the description via notes and feedback, why would it be a safe assumption on my end to assume that everything I've heard is wrong that I will actually enjoy the game?
@Anduine but not all feedback you've heard is negative! Many players, including myself here are saying it's worth the effort to try out and that it makes for a more rewarding experience. Who here is telling you that this mod isn't worth the price of admission? If there's another group of people you swear by that's one thing, but the general consensus here is that there are at the very least key features that are fantastic. Also, what have you heard that was so negative about this particular mod? What about the game notes didn't you like? I just hate it when people are vague is all, no offense.
@Zeckul I'm not sure why I'm being quoted. I've advanced no arguments for or against the merits of including Ascension, and your argument about Gaider's endorsement is something I've already mentioned--twice.
I'm just trying to debunk the oft-repeated claim that Ascension was planned but not included.
It wasn't planned but it features many ideas that were cut from the original TOB due to time and budget constraints, and many upgrades that came about due to complaints from players who happened to coincide with many of the features that were cut but on the table. Just because it's stuff that got cut due to time doesn't mean that it's not worth a play through to judge on it's merits. And it's absolutely coming from a place of good intention from the lead designer of the expansion, it's very nearly a patch my friend.
It wasn't planned but it features many ideas that were cut from the original TOB due to time and budget constraints, and many upgrades that came about due to complaints from players who happened to coincide with many of the features that were cut but on the table. Just because it's stuff that got cut due to time doesn't mean that it's not worth a play through to judge on it's merits. And it's absolutely coming from a place of good intention from the lead designer of the expansion, it's very nearly a patch my friend.
LOL Where do all these assumptions come from? I was there and have said on page two what it does and how it came about. @CamDawg is not making this stuff up:D ... None of it was what was originally intended but no time. There were no 'assets' laying around that hadnt been incorporated into the original game. That is all Ascension is.
@Zeckul I'm not sure why I'm being quoted. I've advanced no arguments for or against the merits of including Ascension, and your argument about Gaider's endorsement is something I've already mentioned--twice.
I'm just trying to debunk the oft-repeated claim that Ascension was planned but not included.
Yes, and I'm answering that this is not entirely true: a mod called "Ascension" with the specific features found in "Ascension" was not planned by the original developer team, but there was nonetheless an intent for a more fully realized ending that couldn't be done due to time constraints, and Ascension is the realization of this intent, post-ship.
@Anduine but not all feedback you've heard is negative! Many players, including myself here are saying it's worth the effort to try out and that it makes for a more rewarding experience. Who here is telling you that this mod isn't worth the price of admission? If there's another group of people you swear by that's one thing, but the general consensus here is that there are at the very least key features that are fantastic. Also, what have you heard that was so negative about this particular mod? What about the game notes didn't you like? I just hate it when people are vague is all, no offense.
Ascension is not exactly a new mod, and I've heard feedback about it for years before I even heard of these forums, let alone joined them. Also, I may not necessarily be receiving "negative" feedback. The people who I listen to may enjoy the game, but it's entirely possible that I would NOT enjoy the game based on reasons why they DO.
Comments
Rather than continuing this for another 3 pages, I personally and respectfully request that both sides admit there is no changing the other sides mind and let the debate die down for at least 24 hours. Let the arguments and emotions settle rather than escalating them.
Please? Think of the kittens.
If I didn't care I would not have purchased this game for seven people, nor would I be here now. For the third, and perhaps fourth time, (And hopefully final, the amount of times I've had to repeat myself here due to people ignoring what I say is getting rather ridiculous) is that it's the price I am willing to pay in order to have people I know enjoy the game.
ATTENTION: "It's the price that I am willing to pay in order to have people I know enjoy the game."
As @Communard and @Shin told you, you can't just nerf everything, because that isn't going to improve an item/spell with no redeeming quality. Do you really think that nerfing Magic Missile (which btw isn't OP) can make Reflected Image (not to mention Infravision) a good spell? Sometimes I do what you're trying to say, for example slightly nerfing Skull Trap to make Fireball appealing again, but nerfing everything wouldn't really work, it would actually be counterproductive, because then you end up with nothing worth using, instead of multiple choices.
The goal is to bring all items/spells neither at the OP level, nor at the UP one, but in the middle.
Take Sleep for example (one of the few spells where I took some liberty over PnP):
- Vanilla Sleep spell is ridiculously overpowerd within BG1 because it has a tremendous save penalty, and doesn't allow targets to wake up, making it a 5th lvl Hold Monster spell on steroids (larger AoE, identical result). Its only downside is that it doesn't affect creatures with more than 5 HD/levels, but while in BG1 that is not a huge problem, in BG2 it means such spell could just as well not exist, because it doesn't work against anyone. How the hell was I supposed to make it viable in BG2 only by nerfing? Do you think making every other 1st lvl spell not work against 99,9% of BG2 creatures would have made Sleep cool again?
- what I did was "meeting in the middle" by nerfing it a little for BG1 (no save penalty, targets have a chance to wake up) but making it viable in BG2 (instead of affecting only 5HD or less it works on creatures with as much or less HD than the caster, up to 20HD)
That being said, reducing everything to OP and UP is really sad.
There are lot's of mods and tweaks I like which I don't believe should be included in enhanced edition.
I'd also like to clarify that I don't view your position as harmful to others. As stated, you can and should play the game however you want. As for the topic matter of Ascension, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
The idea for Ascension came from players. The idea that the dev team or Gaider intended this as the actual ToB ending is not true, no matter how may times it gets repeated.
That the lead BG2 writer prefers Ascension over the regular ToB ending is already a huge endorsement; I don't know why people feel the need to exaggerate it.
However, he also admits to the team not having the kind of time they would have wanted with finishing up and that the vanilla ending wasn't fully realized. And then he calls Ascension his offering of what might have been, presumably if the development team had more time and more resources.
You can view that from various perspectives forever. The inspiration for Ascension didn't start out inside of BioWare, but then, the inspiration for BG likely originally came from an outside source as well, as tends to be the case with most projects. Who ends up putting things together also matters.
@Aosaw's statement quoted by you:
"David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines."
Quote from the readme:
"...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. That's a game designer's fantasy, obviously, especially when you're working within the time-frame of an expansion (which must come out while the game's still on peoples' hard-drives)...but seeing as a mod like this can be done in one's spare time, it doesn't have to be. Consider this my offering of what might have been."
I agree that it's not a specific statement, but the gist of it doesn't seem that different to me.
Again, the lead BG2 writer prefers Ascension to the ending of ToB. Stretching this endorsement into areas not supported by facts does it no favors.
The other contents can or cannot hit the original content so i have some reservations:
New slayer forms i believe it's possible (not a change on the skin but on slayer power per level).
New banters between Imoen and Sarevok hit the original content clause, same for rework in epilogues (unfortunally).
Alternatively you could read the post from Cuv, one of the Ascension contributors, a bit upthread from the first time this was asserted and debunked.
As for the origin of the ideas, I'm not debating that, just the overall significance of it. If it turned out that the idea for BG originally came from Feargus Urquhart's wife who wasn't an employee, would that make the entire game something different?
Can you add me to the Ascension readme? Next time this comes up I can just say "I was there, check the readme" and save you a post.
Even so, I maintain the line between official and unofficial content is sometimes thin. A patch too is put together with feedback, input and ideas from people in the community, sometimes even on the community's initiative. And as has already been talked about in this thread, the EE is official but contains a lot of features that were someone else's idea or someone else's work.
- That he wished the design team had more time to tinker with the ending
- That he wished for a more fully realized ending
While one can argue that there was no intent for the specific, concrete features found in Ascension, there definitely was intent for something like Ascension: in Gaider's words, a "more fully realized ending". Furthermore, although the ideas and realization of the content do not all come from David Gaider, all the features still got David Gaider's approbation as he was the lead designer on this mod. It is ultimately irrelevant who originally came up with the ideas or implemented them; many ideas in the original game probably came from sources external to the design team as well! What makes a feature official is not where the idea comes from, or even who implements it, but simply the fact that it gets approved by the design team and put in the game.
Ascension was directed and approved by the game's lead designer, but not put in the game, perhaps because it didn't make financial sense for the company to support it, perhaps because it arrived too late, perhaps because it still needed some rebalancing to please everyone. It is therefore, "almost but not quite official" content.
Overhaul has now the possibility to elevate this content from "almost but not quite official" to "official" status. To decide whether this is a good idea, one has to consider:
1) What is the purpose of making an Enhanced Edition
2) Ascension's own merits
1) In Phillip Daigle's words: In other words, one of the essentials goals behind making an EE is reducing the game's dependance on mods. One of the obvious ways to go about doing that, is to look at what mods are considered essential by the community, and integrate or re-implement these features, or similar features, into the game. For instance BG:EE will deprecate BGTutu, the widescreen mod, and probably most fixpacks; it'll address the need for more NPCs and content with more NPCs and content of its own.
BG2:EE could address the community's and game's lead designer wish of a more fully realized ending, by integrating the mod that was designed by that same lead designer to fulfill that same wish, and which is first on everyone's install list for ToB, Ascension. That makes sense, doesn't it?
It definitely makes more sense than the other options:
- Ship with ToB's original, lackluster ending, perpetuating the reliance on a mod to fill a void
- Implement its own, 3rd version of the ending, risking that many players will keep prefering and relying on Ascension anyway, or worse, breaking the mod
2) Ascension's own merits: have been already discussed extensively, so I won't repeat. There is little to no disagreements about its role-playing additions, and while the tougher battles are not for everyone, this can be worked around with intelligent use of the difficulty slider.
I'm not sure why I'm being quoted. I've advanced no arguments for or against the merits of including Ascension, and your argument about Gaider's endorsement is something I've already mentioned--twice.
I'm just trying to debunk the oft-repeated claim that Ascension was planned but not included.