Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Icewind Dale II EE

2

Comments

  • CvijetaCvijeta Member Posts: 417
    rorikon said:


    I'd prefer IWD2:EE to somehow use 2nd edition rules myself, but I'm fairly sure that's impossible legally and even if it were not it'd be far too much effort to rework an entire game to make a change many people wouldn't even agree with!

    Many people agree with you, they are just not sensible enough to realize it damn too much work. Or just prefer not to play 3rd edition, at all.
    Im sure IWD2EE would be first 3rd edition EE for Beamdog.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,004
    edited July 2017
    Cvijeta said:

    rorikon said:


    I'd prefer IWD2:EE to somehow use 2nd edition rules myself, but I'm fairly sure that's impossible legally and even if it were not it'd be far too much effort to rework an entire game to make a change many people wouldn't even agree with!

    Many people agree with you, they are just not sensible enough to realize it damn too much work. Or just prefer not to play 3rd edition, at all.
    Im sure IWD2EE would be first 3rd edition EE for Beamdog.
    That's what makes the whole idea seem unlikely to me even if the source code were available. IWD2 wasn't popular when it came out and I don't think 3rd edition has become more well regarded since than - so is there really any attraction for a commercial company to remake it?

    semiticgoddess
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Grond0 said:

    Cvijeta said:

    rorikon said:


    I'd prefer IWD2:EE to somehow use 2nd edition rules myself, but I'm fairly sure that's impossible legally and even if it were not it'd be far too much effort to rework an entire game to make a change many people wouldn't even agree with!

    Many people agree with you, they are just not sensible enough to realize it damn too much work. Or just prefer not to play 3rd edition, at all.
    Im sure IWD2EE would be first 3rd edition EE for Beamdog.
    That's what makes the whole idea seem unlikely to me even if the source code were available. IWD2 wasn't popular when it came out and I don't think 3rd edition has become more well regarded since than - so is there really any attraction for a commercial company to remake it?
    3rd afaik was hugely popular, but IWD2 skipped some components that helped make it so popular, ie prestige classes, full skill implementation, rolling for stats (I loved buy, but many did not), and not a 3rd issue but the plot is 100% railroad, and if you don't talk to everyone, especially the hidden ghost, the story is pretty bland. Also, the puzzles were very hit or miss, and stalled the game on a miss.

    The big plus was how incredible the core combat was; I had a witch doctor go the long way around in the first fortress to Snowball Swarm my party from behind. Damn. On HoF, it was a damn impressive opposition, unless you ran 6 clerics with Animate Dead, then the game could be steam rolled.

    KamigoroshiGrammarsaladsemiticgoddesskanisatha
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited July 2017

    Fardragon said:

    They recorded over the original video tapes, because they hadn't invented reruns.

    A very comparable situation, though I'm fairly sure the original masters were film prints and not recordable tapes...
    Nope, Doctor Who was almost entirely recorded on video tape, with the exception of Spearhead From Space, which is why that story is the only one now available in HD.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited July 2017


    Also, just because the popularity back at release was on the low end doesn't mean that its popularity stayed that way. Over these 15 years many learned to love it, just like in Planescape: Torment's case. GoG lists it at 4.5 stars with over 2500 voters. Metacritic lists Icewind Dale II with a critics score of 83 and a player score of 8.3.

    So would gamers be generally be interested in a remake of Icewind Dale II? I believe the numbers speak for itself.

    PS: Torment was always critically acclaimed. It was just too literary for a mass market. IWD2 was just a satisfactory game for people desperate for a Dungeons and Dragons experience. It's wholly unremarkable. Forgettable, overly linear plot, no companions, and overreliance on punishing combat. If you could release it as a 5th edition game right now for minimal cost, I would say don't bother - come back with a more interesting story.

    And if you really want to play IWD2, buy it on GoG. The only way to "enhance" it would be to give it a good story.

    RaduzielbatoorBalrog99
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    An applause for Fardragon's peerless optimism about the most important features of the Icewind Dale franchise, as well as its no doubtly bright future! Just what would we do without his sunny smile? :p

    batoorDreadKhanGrammarsalad
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,633
    iwd 2 also came out right before black isle shut down.

    Balrog99semiticgoddess
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I don't think Beamdog actually made big profits on IWD1, and there at least they could actually enhance It, with the BG2 kits. I really don't understand what people think there is to enhance on IWD2. I also don't understand what people think it actually has going for it. If said the plot isn't very good, and no one has jumped in and said "no, it has a great plot" or "the plot may be dull but this other feature is really good".

    When it comes to remakes getting to IWD2 really is hitting the bottom of the barrel.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,199
    Fardragon said:

    I don't think Beamdog actually made big profits on IWD1, and there at least they could actually enhance It, with the BG2 kits. I really don't understand what people think there is to enhance on IWD2. I also don't understand what people think it actually has going for it. If said the plot isn't very good, and no one has jumped in and said "no, it has a great plot" or "the plot may be dull but this other feature is really good".

    When it comes to remakes getting to IWD2 really is hitting the bottom of the barrel.

    Well several of the "problems" you listed earlier are actually reasons why certain people love it. So popping in and saying "no that's all wrong" isn't really a counter.

    ronaldoKamigoroshiXeknos
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,833
    There are parts of IWD2 that even fans such as myself would love to see changed. Not just bugs and game balance issues (though I do love my Lingering Song-abusing bards), but more basic pacing and gameplay problems like the sluggish nature of the ice temple, the tedious but mandatory fetch quests of Targos, the extremely unclear and slow quest progression in Dragon's Eye, and worst of all, the ambitious but joyless travesty that was Lord Pyros' Domain.

    ThacoBell
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    There are parts of IWD2 that even fans such as myself would love to see changed. Not just bugs and game balance issues (though I do love my Lingering Song-abusing bards), but more basic pacing and gameplay problems like the sluggish nature of the ice temple, the tedious but mandatory fetch quests of Targos, the extremely unclear and slow quest progression in Dragon's Eye, and worst of all, the ambitious but joyless travesty that was Lord Pyros' Domain.

    But what would you actually want to not change, that would make working on IWD2 more worthwhile than working on a new game?

  • XeknosXeknos Member Posts: 8
    ThacoBell said:

    Fardragon said:

    I don't think Beamdog actually made big profits on IWD1, and there at least they could actually enhance It, with the BG2 kits. I really don't understand what people think there is to enhance on IWD2. I also don't understand what people think it actually has going for it. If said the plot isn't very good, and no one has jumped in and said "no, it has a great plot" or "the plot may be dull but this other feature is really good".

    When it comes to remakes getting to IWD2 really is hitting the bottom of the barrel.

    Well several of the "problems" you listed earlier are actually reasons why certain people love it. So popping in and saying "no that's all wrong" isn't really a counter.
    This. I actually quite enjoyed the first act or so of the game, and I thought it was kind of cool going back and seeing how some of the locales you visited in IWD had changed.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,626

    There are parts of IWD2 that even fans such as myself would love to see changed. Not just bugs and game balance issues (though I do love my Lingering Song-abusing bards), but more basic pacing and gameplay problems like the sluggish nature of the ice temple, the tedious but mandatory fetch quests of Targos, the extremely unclear and slow quest progression in Dragon's Eye, and worst of all, the ambitious but joyless travesty that was Lord Pyros' Domain.

    This is why IWD2 is the only IE game i havent completed with no lack of trying on my part.

    Fardragon
  • IWDIWD Member Posts: 24

    There are parts of IWD2 that even fans such as myself would love to see changed.

    Just from my point of view, I would not like things to be changed. The game had it's lengths at certain points, that's true. It still was more fun to me than the main campaign of Neverwinter Nights. I'd love to see it slightly improved so it would still feel the same as it was. Maybe adding an option of playing it with AD&D rules could be fun to check out, if it was possible by any chance.

    I liked also going back to some of the locations from Icewind Dale. You rarely see how things have changed, through the years. That was kind of special for IWD II. Back then I would have liked walking through Easthaven once more just to see how thing had changed since your old party saved the village.

    RelSundanAedanXeknossemiticgoddess
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Saying the story is 'bad' and kinda leaving it at that is not terribly helpful, and some people fund it campy but good. It featured interesting villains that don't soliloquy all over, and if they hadn't done the Lysan reference in the Ice Fortress the cheese factor would be more manageable. What exactly bothered you so much?

    I think switching it to 2nd ed would be batshit crazy, and would alienate most of its more supportive fans, who like the game because its 3rd. You might bring in some replacements, but the cost would be high relative to return.

    There is plenty of improvements that could be made, like more feats, maybe prestige classes, more uses for certain skills, and intelligence checks to get clues to puzzles that can stall the game would all vastly improve playability.

    KamigoroshiThacoBellArctodus
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    semiticgoddess
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    DreadKhan said:

    I think switching it to 2nd ed would be batshit crazy, and would alienate most of its more supportive fans, who like the game because its 3rd. You might bring in some replacements, but the cost would be high relative to return.

    Agreed. It was intended and build around to function with the 3rd edition ruleset in mind. Let's stay it that way. Especially giving that IWDII utilized lots of different skill checks in dialogues, quests and encounters. Any ruleset downgrading wouldn't be able to faithfully recreate such features due to AD&D not having any skills in the first place. That's a can of worms I wouldn't want to get opened.

    ThacoBellDreadKhansemiticgoddess
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    3.5 more faithfully implemented would probably make the most sense as 3.5 was and remains popular, and its already most of the way there. From what I know, 5e would be a gargantuan shift.

    I can agree in a perfect world it could be nice to have 2e as an option, but feasibility seems low, and there is no guarantee getting the IWDEE market would be bigger than getting the 3.x market. 3.x remains more popular than 2e, so a mobile 3.x game could tap into a new, waiting market.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited August 2017
    DreadKhan said:

    Saying the story is 'bad' and kinda leaving it at that is not terribly helpful, and some people fund it campy but good. It featured interesting villains that don't soliloquy all over, and if they hadn't done the Lysan reference in the Ice Fortress the cheese factor would be more manageable. What exactly bothered you so much?
    .

    Boredom.

    I have tried to play IWD2 through many times, and always bored-quit long before I reached the end. It is the only infinity engine game I have never managed to complete (and I did complete NWNOC - even Sword Coast Legends has a more engaging plot).

    It was just fighting generic enemies in generic locations because reasons.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    DreadKhan said:

    3.5 more faithfully implemented would probably make the most sense as 3.5 was and remains popular, and its already most of the way there. From what I know, 5e would be a gargantuan shift?

    Actually, I would say there are fewer changes converting 2e to 5e than converting 2e to 3e.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    I think most enemies in IWD2 are pretty thematicly relevant; which ones stand out to you as being not sensible? I could see the beetles, but most seemed okay to me. Maybe the chult stuff? A bit random.

    Imho, I would say IWD2 would benefit from more text... IWD had the same problem of great story so seperated by action that it felt bland. I actually think IWD is at least as strong as BG was, but BG beats us over the head with plot so it is kept in the forefront (Well, maybe just settings of IWD were stronger). There isn't so much better plot as simply more plot. If lots of extra writing was added to make it harder to ignore, it'd help. It requires more effort to be invested in IWD's story.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I said generic, I.e. Unimaginative, not "not sensible ". Orcs and goblins, D&Ds most boring monsters. One of BG's smartest decisions was to avoid them. If they where the only threat that made sense with the story, then it's time to get a better story.

    IWD2s biggest problem is the contrast. It has excellent character creation, that you can spend ages on, and then absolutely nothing interesting to do with them.

    Artona
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    Ehhh, there are tons upon tons of orcs and goblins in the BG saga. And let's not forget about the constant hobgoblin and kobold cannon fodders, which by all fairness are just as bland. At least Icewind Dale 2 also featured bugbears and other critters which cannot be found in Gorion's Ward's wake.

    Also, D&D most boring monsters are clearly human opponents. No other encounters are as boring, generic and badly smelling as those hairless apes. :p

    DreadKhanBalrog99ThacoBell
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,415

    DreadKhan said:

    I think switching it to 2nd ed would be batshit crazy, and would alienate most of its more supportive fans, who like the game because its 3rd. You might bring in some replacements, but the cost would be high relative to return.

    Agreed. It was intended and build around to function with the 3rd edition ruleset in mind. Let's stay it that way. Especially giving that IWDII utilized lots of different skill checks in dialogues, quests and encounters. Any ruleset downgrading wouldn't be able to faithfully recreate such features due to AD&D not having any skills in the first place. That's a can of worms I wouldn't want to get opened.
    I guess you skipped the Non-Weapon Proficiencies section of the AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.

    Non-weapon proficiencies are AD&D's equivalent of 3E skills. They were introduced in 1st Edition Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. 2nd Edition added them as an optional rule in the Player's Handbook (FYI, weapon proficiencies were also an optional rule in the 2E PHB). They were initially handled as more of skilled/unskilled system (no ranks). To use your proficiency, you made an ability check against the relevant score for the proficiency, subject to modifiers.

    The initial 2E system was rather dependent on ability score, so the Player's Option supplements (the same ones that the BG games used for weapon mastery rules) revised the system into one with ranks in the proficiencies that characters could improve over time (and ability scores gave modifiers to the player's proficiency score).

    And AD&D is not a "downgrade". It's just a different set of rules. Each ruleset has its strengths and weaknesses. And any D&D scenario can be translated between rulesets. The Temple of Elemental Evil was a pen & paper module for 1st Edition AD&D. Two decades later, it was later translated into the 3E computer game.

    IWD2 under 2E could implement non-weapon proficiencies using the Player's Option rules, or they could just use ability/class checks (e.g., bluff -> Charisma check, wilderness lore -> Ranger or Druid class check, etc..).

    [Deleted User]ThacoBell
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    edited August 2017
    Thing about non-weapon proficiencies is though that both Black Isle and Bioware never implemented them in their AD&D IE games. With exception of the thief ones perhaps. Would have Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment and the Baldur's Gate Saga profited from their inclusion? Most likely, yes. But porting Icewind Dale 2 over to the Enhanced Infinity Engine, as is, wouldn't have support for non-weapon proficiencies as well. Making it more of a "what if" question than anything concrete.

    they could just use ability/class checks (e.g., bluff -> Charisma check, wilderness lore -> Ranger or Druid class check, etc..).

    That's exactly what I meant with not faithfully recreating such features though. Having only ability score checks would not suffice here. And throwing in class checks seems rather one-sided for skills which every character could pick in the original game. That's indeed a can of worms I wouldn't want to get opened. At least not for any official product.

    DreadKhanThacoBell
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,415
    There Is a HUGE difference between "AD&D doesn't have X" and "the Infinity Engine doesn't implement X from AD&D".

    Ability checks can be used well in dialogs - take PST as an example of that. The original IWD and IWD2 also make use of class checks for various dialogs. And, besides, as I stated, there IS an AD&D mechanic they could add if they really needed to include Wilderness Lore for that one time in all of IWD2 that it's actually useful.

    [Deleted User]bleusteel
Sign In or Register to comment.