Because Beamdog will go broke if they continue to use game engines that lack modern software tools.
That's a given. What I'm asking is why Unreal specifically? Unity is far more cross platform friendly and offers solid modding potential. Both things not commonly found in Unreal-based games.
Sure is. Ridiculously so at that, thanks to the Unity Mod Manager. Even Linux and Mac users can mod Unity-based games such as Pathfinder: Kingmaker on the fly. Modding Unreal on the other hand is nothing short of a nightmare. Especially when you're not on Windows.
Sure is. Ridiculously so at that, thanks to the Unity Mod Manager. Even Linux and Mac users can mod Unity-based games such as Pathfinder: Kingmaker on the fly. Modding Unreal on the other hand is nothing short of a nightmare. Especially when you're not on Windows.
The sheer fact that you have to use the Unity Mod Manager means it's not "easier to mod". You need an external tool, NOT created by the game creator, therefore it's not easier to mod.
In fact, even the Infinity Engine games aren't "easy to mod". Without the modding tools that players have created and improved over two decades, mods on those games would be few and far between. It stands as a testament to the quality and to the community that mods for some of our favorite games are still being developed even today.
In that case it's even easier to do, actually. Obsidian's PoE games have official mod support and were all created in Unity, for instance. Game creators are able to support modding just fine, if they desire to do so during development. Unofficial modding via the Unity Mod Manager however still is ridiculously easy from a consumer point of view. Cant't get easier than drag 'n dropping, honestly. Even NwN modding is more complicated than that. And as you know, that game had official mod support.
Obsidian's PoE games have official mod support and were all created in Unity, for instance.
This is factually incorrect. Developing mods for the PoE games requires an external tool created by a Third Party: Unity Mod Manager.
As for your "question", seems more like whining than a question, and we both know you aren't going to get an answer. Also, if you think modding Unreal Engine is more difficult, I'd have to say you're naive at this point: https://wiki.unrealengine.com/Modding:_Adding_mod-support_to_your_Unreal_Engine_4_project -- Amazingly, you'll find an external tool isn't necessary. Only the Unreal Engine is, and Unreal Engine is free.
Developing mods for the PoE games requires no external tool created by a Third Party: see tutorial Modding Basic Concepts.
Fixed your post, no need to thank me. Developers have been able to grand official mod support for their games via Assetbundles ever since Unity 5 with its first-party Editor came out. And Unity is free for individuals - making Unity Editor the perfect modding tool for developers and modders alike. It being more user-friendly for non-Windows users is also welcome in my book.
Quite frankly, the only real advantagement Unreal has over Unity nowadays is that Epic throws their weight in money around, acting as a sponsor for game studios of all sizes. If they agree to prioritize their Epic Store over other storefronts, that is. Which would be more of a demerit in Beamdog's case, I reckon. Since this would literally be a thorn in Beamstore's side.
The biggest downside of Unreal of course is that developers are vastly more limited in bringing their game to other platforms: Unreal 4 currently supports 12 platforms, whereas Unity as of now supports 25 platforms and is still steadily expanding. As I previously said, Unreal is tremendously lacking in cross platform versatility in comparison to its rival engine.
Developing mods for the PoE games requires no external tool created by a Third Party: see tutorial Modding Basic Concepts.
Fixed your post, no need to thank me.
That wasn't something Obsidian even had to create for modding. That's a basic feature of PoE that one of their developers is giving a tutorial on. But hey, you keep thinking you're clever. I suspect you actually don't understand half of these things, but you do you do.
For example, Unreal uses C++, which makes it incredibly portable. The "12 vs. 25" platforms thing is just a marketing line, realistically. Developers are really only going to make games for about 5 or 6 different devices anyway.
Of course, another big thing you keep ignoring is Unreal allows creation of fully 3D games, whereas Unity games tend to be isometric. You can make fully 3D games in both, but it's easier to do it in Unreal.
Finally, at the end of the day, no gaming company asks first, "Can we support creation of mods?" That's extra that comes later.
Quite frankly, the only real advantagement Unreal has over Unity nowadays is that Epic throws their weight in money around, acting as a sponsor for game studios of all sizes. If they agree to prioritize their Epic Store over other storefronts, that is. Which would be more of a demerit in Beamdog's case, I reckon. Since this would literally be a thorn in Beamstore's side.
I highly doubt Beamdog is in a position to be picky at this point. They were beat out on the making of Baldur's Gate 3, and it's unlikely that WotC is awarding any new D&D games to Beamdog right now. Fact is, beggers can't be choosers. That's another reason to use Unreal: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release -- It's free, and you pay Epic Games royalties.
Oh, and here's a nice little tidbit from the above URL that should put all your worries to rest, if your qualm actually is modding Unreal Games:
If you wish to release a mod editor for your game, please contact your Epic account rep.
In other words, Unreal is very aware that many companies want their Unreal Engine-based games to be moddable, and there's a process for doing that.
Not lying, but I sure *do not* want Minsc in BGIII to show up. Like. At all!
That character was in so many cameo's it's not funny anymore. At this points it is nothing but cringe worthy. Let some other characters be in the limelight. Preferable non-joinable ones.
I don't want to see Minsc either. Regardless of the quality that may or may not encompass. He had his adventures. He got a BEUTIFUL epilogue after ToB and he deserves to end on a high note. Honestly, there would be very few npcs I'd want to see. Just about everyone got their happy endings. Pulling them out for a new round of adventuring would most likely undo that.
Yeah, this is the non-cynical way to put it, and I concur. I really dislike in any story when a character has a smooth character arc and gets brought back for fan service/money. *Cough* Shadow the Hedgehog *cough*
And considering that SoD's writers were ordered to make the dialogues shallow/short I'm really glad that it is not Beamdog who is doing BG3.
Looking back on it, I think SoD's writers really screwed the pooch. The game had a lot of potential. But it's sad when you can look at SoD, then hear folks who've never played it before and want to play BG1 & 2 again ask, "Is SoD a requirement?" And you have to respond, "I don't think it is. It'd have been a good game if it wasn't attached to the Baldur's Gate series, but it's not a strong addition to the series. Play it if you want to."
The reason I call that sad is, the Baldur's Gate games remain some of my favorite and most loved games. SoD? I can't honestly say it matches up.
I gotta concur with this @rapsam2003 . Lately I've even been streaming Baldur's Gate on Twitch and asking my viewers if they want me to do Siege of Dragonspear or skip straight to Baldur's Gate II. I don't get a ton of viewers, but thus far all of them have suggested I go straight to BGII.
I really do wish SoD were its own thing instead of connected to BG. I think it would've really come into its own that way during development. But it also wouldn't have sold for beans. Sigh.
TotSC is bad. The Ice Island plot looks like something coming from a lazy DM "yeah... So he teleports you guys and there is this maze with some wizards and... Oh yeah, you need to get a cloak. Let's do it because my girlfriend wants to watch a movie". But it adds Durlag's Tower and I'm a dungeon crawler. The Werewolf Island is kind of cool - to get in touch with the past is BG's founder is something to cherish.
ToB is bad. I think the power curve is bad planned giving +3 weapons to every John Doe and the damn HLAs - also the fact that it is railroaded AF turns me off. But it gave us Watcher's Keep - a dungeon inline with BG2 challenges. It also puts us in front of the decision if becoming a god or not, a classic ending for D&D (the first one) parties - all the way to Lv 1 to Godhood.
SoD is bad. It would be ok if it was a new title (a la Icewind Dale) but as a BG story it is kind of lost. Nothing interesting is added (the Temple of Bhaal is cool, but too short to be considered a proper dungeon), the story is more railroaded than the one presented in ToB. I have the feeling that I took my Ravenloft character and started to play with him in a Dark Sun campaign; cool, better than putting my character on a shelf, but totally out of place. Also the writing is... IDK. Odd? Looks like no one really wants to talk, the feeling I have is that the NPCs are as bored with the campaign as I was.
Icewind Dale could make a better narrative with basically a druid, a narrator and some loose dialogues.
I see that you've departed these forums, but I'm shocked to agree with so many different hot takes in one post. So thanks for your post.
I would have loved to have seen the BG3 announcement coming from Beamdog and not Larian - it would be a guarantee for quality content and respect for the history/heritage imho.
Amusingly enough I feel the opposite. I feel Larian will do a better job respecting the history/heritage than Beamdog. SoD felt really off-putting so I'm willing to give another studio a chance. Of course, they may disappoint me as well.
---
And now I see the tone of the thread has changed dramatically.
This all points to a very hazy future for Beamdog. I actually understand them doing Axis and Allies; it has its appeal, certainly. It just doesn't appeal to the vast majority of people here in the forums, because, well, we're Baldur's Gate fans.
Sounds like there's no winning for them with their involvement with WotC. I would say their best bet is to do a sci-fi/fantasy setting RPG that doesn't have the D&D label on it. Of course, then they have to worry about people actually buying the game. The names "Baldur's Gate" and "Dungeons and Dragons" carry a ton of weight. And whether you like Siege of Dragonspear or not, truth is it launched to very mixed reviews (for valid and invalid reasons), so WotC isn't willing ot make another gamble with them. That bridge is burnt.
Let's be honest here, SoD was always going to be behind the 8-ball. Beamdog attempted to fill in a space that really didn't need filling in order to stay within the greater Baldur's Gate universe. Which meant that there was really only one beginning and (more importantly) only one real ending. Sure, that ending could be "bad" or "good", but ultimately you were going to end up in that clearing one way or the other. Why? Because BG2 already existed. There was simply no way to offer the kind of flexibility the previous games could.
Where Beamdog dropped the ball was in making SoD feel more like a ToB-esque sequel to BG1 than a proper inter-quel. Yes, that's a tough order given the circumstances, but that's what they bought onto. Don't get me wrong - I loved the SoD campaign - but it felt as hurried and linear as ToB. I would have loved to have had more time to really explore some of those places. I was wowed by the art and atmosphere, and wondered what else might be in those woods. Who cares? You have to get moving and "make time".
Then there is the Mizhena thing. That *shouldn't* have been an issue, but Beamdog took the risk of making a minor vendor transgender and people lost it. Yes, it was a risk, and yes, it backfired spectacularly. However, I played through that and the blowback was entirely undeserved. The game took a tremendous amount of flack over what amounted to a line or two of dialog.
It's a shame that the company was so put off by that complete BS that there will likely never be another IE based game made again. All that wonderful technology that they added in SoD, with amazing effects and improved AI - all down the toilet because knuckleheads couldn't fathom the idea of a transgender NPC.
Ultimately, however, I fault WoTC for being jerks with licensing. Sure, I get the desire to not license AD&D to every Tom, Dick, and Harry; but I feel that, given the situation, they could be a bit more accommodating here. Maybe give Beamdog a second shot at a new game, based on a more obscure bit of lore, as a way of showing what they can do when they aren't hemmed in on both sides by existing games. There are tons of stories that rarely get told in this setting that would be awesome on this engine.
Ultimately, however, I fault WoTC for being jerks with licensing. Sure, I get the desire to not license AD&D to every Tom, Dick, and Harry; but I feel that, given the situation, they could be a bit more accommodating here. Maybe give Beamdog a second shot at a new game, based on a more obscure bit of lore, as a way of showing what they can do when they aren't hemmed in on both sides by existing games. There are tons of stories that rarely get told in this setting that would be awesome on this engine.
Beamdog could easily have chosen to create a story using the 5th Edition ruleset and lore. Instead, they tried to make an unneeded game for AD&D2 lore that, frankly, was already complete. I don't blame WotC for Beamdog's choices. SoD didn't sell as well as WotC or Beamdog expected it to, so WotC (unsurprisingly) refused to give Beamdog a contract to make BG3. The reasons why SoD didn't sell are irrelevant. What matters is, Beamdog failed to show WotC that they could make a game and sell it well!
It's a shame that the company was so put off by that complete BS that there will likely never be another IE based game made again. All that wonderful technology that they added in SoD, with amazing effects and improved AI - all down the toilet because knuckleheads couldn't fathom the idea of a transgender NPC.
@Maurvir I agree with the vast majority of your post, and very much appreciate your contribution, but I will disagree that the backlash was all because of Mizhena. It certainly played a part in the trollish review-bombing that happened, yes, but even if you look at purely professional reviews... Metacritic says the average critic review for SoD is 77, compared to BGII's 95 and BG1's 91. That's a staggering difference. Age is a slight factor I'm sure, but it isn't a huge factor because while the series has always been mechanically great, its technology wasn't earth-shattering at the time. (Its size and scope was decently large for the time compared to now, I'll concede that.)
On top of that, a gander through non-professional reviews is pretty telling as well. You have a few idiots crying about Mizhena, yeah, but there's a whole lot more people complaining about bugs and the writing as a whole. (Personally, I never encountered significant bugs, but I gotta say I find the writing varies wildly between great and awful; it's bizarre.)
It is, but my point remains. Beamdog felt that they needed the Baldur's Gate universe to gain traction, and they were probably right. I know I had never heard of them before, and it's likely that a stand-alone game wouldn't have made the front page anywhere.
That said, I suspect there is still money to be made in IE based games because they can be played on nearly anything. My ancient Android tablet can play them well. Maybe Beamdog doesn't get BG3, but a steady stream of lesser known tales that can be played on everything from PCs to Switches? That seems like something profitable.
I do agree, though, any future projects should probably skip straight to the current rule set.
That said, I suspect there is still money to be made in IE based games because they can be played on nearly anything. My ancient Android tablet can play them well. Maybe Beamdog doesn't get BG3, but a steady stream of lesser known tales that can be played on everything from PCs to Switches? That seems like something profitable.
Why does the fact that Beamdog created ports of IE games for multiple platforms also mean IE games are profitable?
To be blunt, I don't even want Beamdog to use D&D at this point. I want them to do something like what Obsidian has done, where they have their own RPG, with their own world, their own classes, their own races, etc. They need to get a Kickstarter fundraiser going, imho.
That said, I suspect there is still money to be made in IE based games because they can be played on nearly anything. My ancient Android tablet can play them well. Maybe Beamdog doesn't get BG3, but a steady stream of lesser known tales that can be played on everything from PCs to Switches? That seems like something profitable.
Why does the fact that Beamdog created ports of IE games for multiple platforms also mean IE games are profitable?
To be blunt, I don't even want Beamdog to use D&D at this point. I want them to do something like what Obsidian has done, where they have their own RPG, with their own world, their own classes, their own races, etc. They need to get a Kickstarter fundraiser going, imho.
To be honest, I agree with you on that one. I was just thinking about that on my way home from work - how nice it would be for Beamdog to create their own RPG where they could implement real moral ambiguity, deep and winding storylines that actually intertwine, a reputation system that tracks what your characters do, a modern AI, and game mechanics not created in the 1970's. The trick is getting people to try a completely new property, even if it's amazing.
Now, I know IE is getting awfully old at this point, and maybe it's the wrong platform, BUT have you seen the worthless crap that is mobile gaming? The EE versions of BG are unbelievably rare in that respect, and I think a proper game, with over 100+ hours of content, would sell like hotcakes on both app stores. Which means sticking with the isometric format - since most mobile devices can't credibly handle first person perspective games yet.
SoD wasn't a bad add-on. But it wasn't particularly good either. "Mixed" would be the best description for it imho. As a whole, I regard it to be similarly in quality and importance to ToB. Maybe slightly worse than that, since I was not a fan of the whole crusade plot idea. Just as I am not exactly a fan of the choosen Adventure Path of Owlcat's next cRPG: Wrath of the Righteous
To be fair to Beamdog the largest request I would see on this forum was specifically to fill that gap. It was a natural grey point in the story and people for years have wanted to know how A lead to C.
I still love i. I feel people are way to critical on every piece of dialogue and enjoy jumping to point at the misteps when it also has some really great highs and obvious showcasing of improving talent when you look at the development of new content in BG1EE(which I enjoy but does have some rough edges, narrativly and mechanically, particularly Neeras quest for me) culminating in SoD which is leagues above.
Would have love to have seeb where that trend could have lead within Forgotten Realms settings. Still looking forward to Beamdogs 3D Fighter tho.
Hold your horses, everyone, I do believe to remember Beamdog specifically stating that making a mid-quel was basically the only logical option they where able to do with the franchise. Something about WotC not allowing them to make a stand-alone game in 2e and only being allowed to make an add-on with 2e. Etc.
Everybody just loooves throwing shade at Beamdog, but y'all seem to forget that they can't do shit with these pre-existing IPs without WotC looming over them.
Given all the restrictions Beamdog had to work with, I think SoD is about as good as it gets, whether one personally likes it or not.
@Kamigoroshi "Just as I am not exactly a fan of the choosen Adventure Path of Owlcat's next cRPG: Wrath of the Righteous"
Oh heck yeah. I'm a sucker for narratives that pit you against some kind of an ultimate evil. I'm really a Paladin at heart.
I will never understand how someone could honestly like the BG series, but not like SoD. SoD has so many mechanical improvements over BG, without removing the BG spirit, along with some of the best npcs in the series. Are people just THAT blinded by 20 year old nostaliga?
I will never understand how someone could honestly like the BG series, but not like SoD. SoD has so many mechanical improvements over BG, without removing the BG spirit, along with some of the best npcs in the series. Are people just THAT blinded by 20 year old nostaliga?
I don't think that's the really case, actually. Just like how there are many people liking the base games, but not felt the same way for ToB all those years ago. And the number of folks not loving that expansion isn't exactly small on this forum either. It all comes down to personal taste. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one don't have strong feelings for SoD either way: it was "okay", just that.
For me SoD was good, in the same level of ToB, with some good news things, but my main problems was two things:
First the ending: I really dont like to be force to a specific ending with some different flavor, like after everything we do, you`re guilty, no trials, no investigation, just runaway, that feels dumb and rush.
Second: I understand that SoD has to be between 1 and 2, but why it has to end at the beginning of two? Why not create a story between this two games without touching the timeline?
Trying to connect SoD with the beginning of SoA i think it was a mistake, they were less free this way, i dont know why but it really butters me.
I will never understand how someone could honestly like the BG series, but not like SoD. SoD has so many mechanical improvements over BG, without removing the BG spirit, along with some of the best npcs in the series. Are people just THAT blinded by 20 year old nostaliga?
I feel that is EXACTLY what it is. I think that people were pissed at Beamdog’s attempts to flesh out the characters of the original BG, and the purists would rage at anything they felt changed their vision of those characters. I’ve seen some absolutely ridiculous comments on SoD, mostly on the lines that the writing wasn’t a patch on BG. I don’t understand how anyone could objectively say the writing in SoD was inferior to BG when the characters in the original BG were essentially blank slates with NO character development whatsoever and the story was wafer thin.
I’m sorry if anyone disagrees with this view, but there is no way ever that the writing for SoD could ever be called inferior to what was done with BG.
I will never understand how someone could honestly like the BG series, but not like SoD. SoD has so many mechanical improvements over BG, without removing the BG spirit, along with some of the best npcs in the series. Are people just THAT blinded by 20 year old nostaliga?
@ThacoBell It seems to me you willfully choose not to understand how someone could like BG and not SoD. I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt because I like you and your contributions, but some of your comments on this matter are strawman arguments that feel pretty insulting. I'm referring to this one especially:
Two kinds of people didn't like SoD.
1. Special snowflake bigots who clutched their pearls at the very thought of a minor npc not being straight.
2. People who can't see past their nostalgia and would hate anything that wasn't virtually identical to BG1.
According to you, a person can only dislike SoD because they're a transphobe or blinded by nostalgia. This a mean-spirited comment, implying anyone who dislikes the game is somehow mentally deficient.
For the record:
It is not a catastrophic game, but ultimately, I dislike SoD. (I'd give it a 4 or 5 out of 10.)
I have a trans brother whom I love very much.
I'm looking forward to BGIII being developed by Larian, with all its differences and new mechanics--e.g., not blinded by nostalgia.
You are free to offer a rebuttal of course, but then I will drop it:
I was stoked on SoD. I preordered the collector's edition, which I don't regret because it's neat--anyone can check my profile badges here if they doubt me--I honestly feel it did remove much of the BG spirit. People on both sides of this debate need to understand, this is subjective. In my eyes, there were moments of greatness (as you mentioned: "best npcs," I feel Glint and Corwin are Beamdog at their absolute best), but for me, mixing this original plot of a crusade and the resulting war, chaos, and refugees with little sprinklings of Irenicus and Bhaal just felt super sloppy; at odds with itself; a miss-matched dichotomy. I just don't like most of the writing, which is personal taste--others love it, which is cool! As I understand it, Beamdog had this original plot idea, and then mid-development they ended up having to tie it into Irenicus and Bhaal thanks to WotC. (To be clear: I believe the game would've been far better without WotC's meddling, Beamdog was in a tough spot.)
As much as I love the series, I am able to critique it. I'm not going to make a list, but BG1 and BGII are not without fault. ToB is especially not without fault--a predictable plot, and some similar pitfalls to SoD, such as the very linear progression that feels very against the BG spirit in my eyes--I wouldn't rate it much higher than SoD. In several ways, I'd even call SoD better than ToB. It's awesome that we're all fans here and we can reminisce, theorycraft, and collaborate, but we all have different likes and dislikes about the game series and that's fine.
I mean, there are NPC mods out there with crazy romance paths that feel more juvenile than the Twilight series, and some BG fans absolutely love it. They're injecting a style of storytelling that they enjoy into one of their favorite games. That's cool! Different strokes for different folks; something for everyone.
SoD did not meet my needs, so I critique it. I critique it more than extensive fan mods because (a.) I have little-to-no hands-on experience with mods [this is my fault], (b.) it was made by a legitimate game company with money and WotC backing, and (c.) it claims to be canonical. Well, when you claim to be canonical, and you shoehorn an already-dated comment about Gamergate onto the game's most beloved and well-known NPC, you bet your ass I'm gonna critique. Aaaand what do you know, that little comment was nixed. Constructive feedback is good.
I will never support the morons who review-bombed the game for Mizhena. Not only was it wrong in every sense of the word, it also seems to detract and distract from the legitimacy of honest and fair critiques of SoD.
The game is a mixed bag; some good, some bad. Depending on who you are, the "bad" will occupy your mind most prominently, or the "good" will do that instead. I am happy that some people like Siege of Dragonspear and that some people don't--and some people who feel it's "OK." All that is objectively a good thing. But please, please stop implying that people can't have legitimate qualms with the game. II find it rude, dismissive, and insulting. I may continue to comment on this thread but it won't be on this particular topic, as I've said my piece. Thanks for reading, and I hope I've changed a mind or two.
@Quartz Can you explain why you think SoD is not in spirit with the rest of BG? Because nothing in your comment indicates why you feel that way.
As for the crusade, it fits very well with the rest of BG, especially BG1. It follows the same theme of BG, but from a different angle. Sarevok was always the flipped coin for a good charname. With the series constantly bringing up the "nature vs. nurture". Sarevok embraces his nature, while a good charname fights it. Even BG2 weighs in on this when the taint manifests in the slayer transformation against charname's will. THe struggle against nature is alway present.
SoD follows the same theme (and very well), but its flipped. SoD has an antagonist who is "good" by her very nature, being an Aasimar and coming from a long line of paladins. But through her own arrogance and inablility to see her own mistakes, she successfully overcomes her own good nature, and spreads death and destruction across the countryside for a selfish ambition. Its ironically the exact same plot that Sarevok tried to enact. Its a beautiful continuation of the series themes, while still standing on its own merits.
To me, the worst thing about SoD is the appearance and meddlings of the hooded man. It may seem to tie in with the sequel but has no ties to the actual SoD plot and only distracts from the storyline doing the antagonist story no justice. This also results in a forced ending that just does not work for me.
The second worst thing is that the motives of the main antagonist is so unclear until the end that I seriously wonder why the collective could not simply let them do whatever they want.
Both are not written as elegantly as the Sarevok saga that leaves hints all over the world but I am guessing that is due to the linearity of SoD more than any of the writing itself.
Comments
That's a given. What I'm asking is why Unreal specifically? Unity is far more cross platform friendly and offers solid modding potential. Both things not commonly found in Unreal-based games.
In fact, even the Infinity Engine games aren't "easy to mod". Without the modding tools that players have created and improved over two decades, mods on those games would be few and far between. It stands as a testament to the quality and to the community that mods for some of our favorite games are still being developed even today.
My question for Beamdog still stands.
This is factually incorrect. Developing mods for the PoE games requires an external tool created by a Third Party: Unity Mod Manager.
As for your "question", seems more like whining than a question, and we both know you aren't going to get an answer. Also, if you think modding Unreal Engine is more difficult, I'd have to say you're naive at this point: https://wiki.unrealengine.com/Modding:_Adding_mod-support_to_your_Unreal_Engine_4_project -- Amazingly, you'll find an external tool isn't necessary. Only the Unreal Engine is, and Unreal Engine is free.
I would hazard a guess the real reason Unreal Engine was chosen had NOTHING to do with mods, and everything to do with the technical comparisons: https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/film-games/unreal-engine-4-vs-unity-game-engine-best || https://www.gamedesigning.org/engines/unity-vs-unreal/
Quite frankly, the only real advantagement Unreal has over Unity nowadays is that Epic throws their weight in money around, acting as a sponsor for game studios of all sizes. If they agree to prioritize their Epic Store over other storefronts, that is. Which would be more of a demerit in Beamdog's case, I reckon. Since this would literally be a thorn in Beamstore's side.
The biggest downside of Unreal of course is that developers are vastly more limited in bringing their game to other platforms: Unreal 4 currently supports 12 platforms, whereas Unity as of now supports 25 platforms and is still steadily expanding. As I previously said, Unreal is tremendously lacking in cross platform versatility in comparison to its rival engine.
For example, Unreal uses C++, which makes it incredibly portable. The "12 vs. 25" platforms thing is just a marketing line, realistically. Developers are really only going to make games for about 5 or 6 different devices anyway.
Of course, another big thing you keep ignoring is Unreal allows creation of fully 3D games, whereas Unity games tend to be isometric. You can make fully 3D games in both, but it's easier to do it in Unreal.
Finally, at the end of the day, no gaming company asks first, "Can we support creation of mods?" That's extra that comes later.
I highly doubt Beamdog is in a position to be picky at this point. They were beat out on the making of Baldur's Gate 3, and it's unlikely that WotC is awarding any new D&D games to Beamdog right now. Fact is, beggers can't be choosers. That's another reason to use Unreal: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release -- It's free, and you pay Epic Games royalties.
Oh, and here's a nice little tidbit from the above URL that should put all your worries to rest, if your qualm actually is modding Unreal Games: In other words, Unreal is very aware that many companies want their Unreal Engine-based games to be moddable, and there's a process for doing that.
I'm looking forward to the FPS where we play as a german shepard that shoots lasers out of its eyes. Beamdog!
How did you discover the sec... I mean nahhh it wouldn't have commercial appeal.
Personally if we ever went the shooter route I'd love to see a new Nanosaur game.
Preach it @Kamigoroshi , preach it.
Yeah, this is the non-cynical way to put it, and I concur. I really dislike in any story when a character has a smooth character arc and gets brought back for fan service/money. *Cough* Shadow the Hedgehog *cough*
I gotta concur with this @rapsam2003 . Lately I've even been streaming Baldur's Gate on Twitch and asking my viewers if they want me to do Siege of Dragonspear or skip straight to Baldur's Gate II. I don't get a ton of viewers, but thus far all of them have suggested I go straight to BGII.
I really do wish SoD were its own thing instead of connected to BG. I think it would've really come into its own that way during development. But it also wouldn't have sold for beans. Sigh.
I see that you've departed these forums, but I'm shocked to agree with so many different hot takes in one post. So thanks for your post.
Amusingly enough I feel the opposite. I feel Larian will do a better job respecting the history/heritage than Beamdog. SoD felt really off-putting so I'm willing to give another studio a chance. Of course, they may disappoint me as well.
---
And now I see the tone of the thread has changed dramatically.
This all points to a very hazy future for Beamdog. I actually understand them doing Axis and Allies; it has its appeal, certainly. It just doesn't appeal to the vast majority of people here in the forums, because, well, we're Baldur's Gate fans.
Sounds like there's no winning for them with their involvement with WotC. I would say their best bet is to do a sci-fi/fantasy setting RPG that doesn't have the D&D label on it. Of course, then they have to worry about people actually buying the game. The names "Baldur's Gate" and "Dungeons and Dragons" carry a ton of weight. And whether you like Siege of Dragonspear or not, truth is it launched to very mixed reviews (for valid and invalid reasons), so WotC isn't willing ot make another gamble with them. That bridge is burnt.
Tough spot they're in. I feel for Beamdog.
Where Beamdog dropped the ball was in making SoD feel more like a ToB-esque sequel to BG1 than a proper inter-quel. Yes, that's a tough order given the circumstances, but that's what they bought onto. Don't get me wrong - I loved the SoD campaign - but it felt as hurried and linear as ToB. I would have loved to have had more time to really explore some of those places. I was wowed by the art and atmosphere, and wondered what else might be in those woods. Who cares? You have to get moving and "make time".
Then there is the Mizhena thing. That *shouldn't* have been an issue, but Beamdog took the risk of making a minor vendor transgender and people lost it. Yes, it was a risk, and yes, it backfired spectacularly. However, I played through that and the blowback was entirely undeserved. The game took a tremendous amount of flack over what amounted to a line or two of dialog.
It's a shame that the company was so put off by that complete BS that there will likely never be another IE based game made again. All that wonderful technology that they added in SoD, with amazing effects and improved AI - all down the toilet because knuckleheads couldn't fathom the idea of a transgender NPC.
Ultimately, however, I fault WoTC for being jerks with licensing. Sure, I get the desire to not license AD&D to every Tom, Dick, and Harry; but I feel that, given the situation, they could be a bit more accommodating here. Maybe give Beamdog a second shot at a new game, based on a more obscure bit of lore, as a way of showing what they can do when they aren't hemmed in on both sides by existing games. There are tons of stories that rarely get told in this setting that would be awesome on this engine.
I doubt we ever get them, though.
At the end of the day, it's about business...
On top of that, a gander through non-professional reviews is pretty telling as well. You have a few idiots crying about Mizhena, yeah, but there's a whole lot more people complaining about bugs and the writing as a whole. (Personally, I never encountered significant bugs, but I gotta say I find the writing varies wildly between great and awful; it's bizarre.)
That said, I suspect there is still money to be made in IE based games because they can be played on nearly anything. My ancient Android tablet can play them well. Maybe Beamdog doesn't get BG3, but a steady stream of lesser known tales that can be played on everything from PCs to Switches? That seems like something profitable.
I do agree, though, any future projects should probably skip straight to the current rule set.
To be blunt, I don't even want Beamdog to use D&D at this point. I want them to do something like what Obsidian has done, where they have their own RPG, with their own world, their own classes, their own races, etc. They need to get a Kickstarter fundraiser going, imho.
To be honest, I agree with you on that one. I was just thinking about that on my way home from work - how nice it would be for Beamdog to create their own RPG where they could implement real moral ambiguity, deep and winding storylines that actually intertwine, a reputation system that tracks what your characters do, a modern AI, and game mechanics not created in the 1970's. The trick is getting people to try a completely new property, even if it's amazing.
Now, I know IE is getting awfully old at this point, and maybe it's the wrong platform, BUT have you seen the worthless crap that is mobile gaming? The EE versions of BG are unbelievably rare in that respect, and I think a proper game, with over 100+ hours of content, would sell like hotcakes on both app stores. Which means sticking with the isometric format - since most mobile devices can't credibly handle first person perspective games yet.
I still love i. I feel people are way to critical on every piece of dialogue and enjoy jumping to point at the misteps when it also has some really great highs and obvious showcasing of improving talent when you look at the development of new content in BG1EE(which I enjoy but does have some rough edges, narrativly and mechanically, particularly Neeras quest for me) culminating in SoD which is leagues above.
Would have love to have seeb where that trend could have lead within Forgotten Realms settings. Still looking forward to Beamdogs 3D Fighter tho.
Everybody just loooves throwing shade at Beamdog, but y'all seem to forget that they can't do shit with these pre-existing IPs without WotC looming over them.
Given all the restrictions Beamdog had to work with, I think SoD is about as good as it gets, whether one personally likes it or not.
Oh heck yeah. I'm a sucker for narratives that pit you against some kind of an ultimate evil. I'm really a Paladin at heart.
I will never understand how someone could honestly like the BG series, but not like SoD. SoD has so many mechanical improvements over BG, without removing the BG spirit, along with some of the best npcs in the series. Are people just THAT blinded by 20 year old nostaliga?
I don't think that's the really case, actually. Just like how there are many people liking the base games, but not felt the same way for ToB all those years ago. And the number of folks not loving that expansion isn't exactly small on this forum either. It all comes down to personal taste. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one don't have strong feelings for SoD either way: it was "okay", just that.
First the ending: I really dont like to be force to a specific ending with some different flavor, like after everything we do, you`re guilty, no trials, no investigation, just runaway, that feels dumb and rush.
Second: I understand that SoD has to be between 1 and 2, but why it has to end at the beginning of two? Why not create a story between this two games without touching the timeline?
Trying to connect SoD with the beginning of SoA i think it was a mistake, they were less free this way, i dont know why but it really butters me.
I feel that is EXACTLY what it is. I think that people were pissed at Beamdog’s attempts to flesh out the characters of the original BG, and the purists would rage at anything they felt changed their vision of those characters. I’ve seen some absolutely ridiculous comments on SoD, mostly on the lines that the writing wasn’t a patch on BG. I don’t understand how anyone could objectively say the writing in SoD was inferior to BG when the characters in the original BG were essentially blank slates with NO character development whatsoever and the story was wafer thin.
I’m sorry if anyone disagrees with this view, but there is no way ever that the writing for SoD could ever be called inferior to what was done with BG.
According to you, a person can only dislike SoD because they're a transphobe or blinded by nostalgia. This a mean-spirited comment, implying anyone who dislikes the game is somehow mentally deficient.
For the record:
You are free to offer a rebuttal of course, but then I will drop it:
I was stoked on SoD. I preordered the collector's edition, which I don't regret because it's neat--anyone can check my profile badges here if they doubt me--I honestly feel it did remove much of the BG spirit. People on both sides of this debate need to understand, this is subjective. In my eyes, there were moments of greatness (as you mentioned: "best npcs," I feel Glint and Corwin are Beamdog at their absolute best), but for me, mixing this original plot of a crusade and the resulting war, chaos, and refugees with little sprinklings of Irenicus and Bhaal just felt super sloppy; at odds with itself; a miss-matched dichotomy. I just don't like most of the writing, which is personal taste--others love it, which is cool! As I understand it, Beamdog had this original plot idea, and then mid-development they ended up having to tie it into Irenicus and Bhaal thanks to WotC. (To be clear: I believe the game would've been far better without WotC's meddling, Beamdog was in a tough spot.)
As much as I love the series, I am able to critique it. I'm not going to make a list, but BG1 and BGII are not without fault. ToB is especially not without fault--a predictable plot, and some similar pitfalls to SoD, such as the very linear progression that feels very against the BG spirit in my eyes--I wouldn't rate it much higher than SoD. In several ways, I'd even call SoD better than ToB. It's awesome that we're all fans here and we can reminisce, theorycraft, and collaborate, but we all have different likes and dislikes about the game series and that's fine.
I mean, there are NPC mods out there with crazy romance paths that feel more juvenile than the Twilight series, and some BG fans absolutely love it. They're injecting a style of storytelling that they enjoy into one of their favorite games. That's cool! Different strokes for different folks; something for everyone.
SoD did not meet my needs, so I critique it. I critique it more than extensive fan mods because (a.) I have little-to-no hands-on experience with mods [this is my fault], (b.) it was made by a legitimate game company with money and WotC backing, and (c.) it claims to be canonical. Well, when you claim to be canonical, and you shoehorn an already-dated comment about Gamergate onto the game's most beloved and well-known NPC, you bet your ass I'm gonna critique. Aaaand what do you know, that little comment was nixed. Constructive feedback is good.
I will never support the morons who review-bombed the game for Mizhena. Not only was it wrong in every sense of the word, it also seems to detract and distract from the legitimacy of honest and fair critiques of SoD.
The game is a mixed bag; some good, some bad. Depending on who you are, the "bad" will occupy your mind most prominently, or the "good" will do that instead. I am happy that some people like Siege of Dragonspear and that some people don't--and some people who feel it's "OK." All that is objectively a good thing. But please, please stop implying that people can't have legitimate qualms with the game. II find it rude, dismissive, and insulting. I may continue to comment on this thread but it won't be on this particular topic, as I've said my piece. Thanks for reading, and I hope I've changed a mind or two.
As for the crusade, it fits very well with the rest of BG, especially BG1. It follows the same theme of BG, but from a different angle. Sarevok was always the flipped coin for a good charname. With the series constantly bringing up the "nature vs. nurture". Sarevok embraces his nature, while a good charname fights it. Even BG2 weighs in on this when the taint manifests in the slayer transformation against charname's will. THe struggle against nature is alway present.
SoD follows the same theme (and very well), but its flipped. SoD has an antagonist who is "good" by her very nature, being an Aasimar and coming from a long line of paladins. But through her own arrogance and inablility to see her own mistakes, she successfully overcomes her own good nature, and spreads death and destruction across the countryside for a selfish ambition. Its ironically the exact same plot that Sarevok tried to enact. Its a beautiful continuation of the series themes, while still standing on its own merits.
The second worst thing is that the motives of the main antagonist is so unclear until the end that I seriously wonder why the collective could not simply let them do whatever they want.
Both are not written as elegantly as the Sarevok saga that leaves hints all over the world but I am guessing that is due to the linearity of SoD more than any of the writing itself.