I know where IWD:2 source code, might be!
Torgrimmer
Member Posts: 331
Look no further, my rebellion begins tonight, On ward, I bet its GoG.com, are hiding the code, It would hurt sales of the original game which only they have. But you might say, Beamdog sales games on GoG.com, why would they do that, easy, at the present time GoG.com is the only digital retailer who offers IWD:2, if they gave up the source code, then we would have an IWD2:EE, which means, Steam, Beamdog client, and GoG.com. It would be bad for GoG.com bc it would cut into profits from being the only seller to now being only 1 of 3 maybe 4 sellers.
I say we organization of resistances and final get what this community been thirsty for "TO THE VAULTS OF GOG.COM!!!"
I say we organization of resistances and final get what this community been thirsty for "TO THE VAULTS OF GOG.COM!!!"
2
Comments
IWD2 was a horribly boring game anyway, I don't get why people would want it ressurected.
The NPCs actually feel alive too by actively watching and engaging opponents. BG always had that problem where nobody cares about monsters walking in a city, or when ghouls, spiders and bandits magically work together.
I would say the only downside is 3e but that's because I know nothing about it
http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/IWD2/index_editors.php
The problem is basically that compilers aren't one-to-one, meaning that there are many different programs that will compile to the exact same executable. So given the executable, there's no way to know for sure what the original source code was. Even if you don't care about getting the exact original code, it's very difficult to design a decompiler that will reliably output human-readable source code as opposed to some obfuscated mess.
Can it not be translated to assembler or machine code or another language? Surely the authors know what the original code was, as in what it was written in?
As an analogy, suppose I make some complicated image in Photoshop, and then I hand you a print-out of it and tell you to list all the steps I took in creating it. That's an impossible task, because there are many different ways to produce any given image in Photoshop.
Or alternatively, suppose I ask you what two numbers I added to get 185. Again, it's impossible.
Compiled code is like that. It's not "translated" in a reversible way.
(alas, I am the first in my family to seek a career in game development so it's not like I'm looking through my dad's hard drive)
On another note, it would be both infuriating and hilarious if it was just mislabeled XD
While technically the information supplied in this forum is correct it's very traditional thinking. My day job involves doing the impossible.
So here's the strategy for building IWD2:EE
Keep in mind that this might not be financially viable, I have no idea what the technical ability of the beam dog team is (and trust me you need some lateral thinking to get the task I'm outlining done).
Presumably IWD2 used an Infinity Engine base to start from. Presumably the IE code is readable given what I see modders doing (I've not looked into this, but it is apparent that there's some form of human readable code or modders would have a much harder time doing the stuff I've seen them do).
Given these 2 facts there's a gap in the middle. So close the gap...
How would you do this you might ask. Simple either implement the missing bits if they are simple or start reverse engineering IWD2 binaries to figure out what the missing bits did.
How long would this process take? Less time than it took to make the original IWD2 and more time than it would take to make an EE version of the game if you had the source code.
Further there's the fact that compilers only use set patterns to generate assembly, optimizations can make things a little more interesting. When you spent enough time in the trenches you learn to spot these patterns and it's not as hard as it might seem at first.
I get annoyed when people say things are impossible, because they can't do it. Then again, maybe I should shut up, since that's what keeps me employed...
So it's not impossible to build IWD2:EE, it might be infeasible to do so due to financial constraints. I suggest that if fans wants it badly enough they start a go fund me page or something to raise as much money as they can to see if that can get a project like this off the ground. At $20 per license I doubt the numbers would ever stack up.
Also before someone chimes in and tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about, this is the kind of stuff I do in my day job. I have lots of experience around this.
impossible is a word that is overused in this day and age, also equivalent code is not necessarily required. From what I can gather the EE versions have a lot of new code and a lot of old code has been removed or reworked.
If the beamdog team has done a decent look at the state and what would be required, then I'm sure they'll be in a position to know if they possess the skills to do it with reasonable amount of resources.
Personally I don't think the job is as huge as it's imagined - I'm not saying it's trivial, but it's likely less work than what it's imagined. This of course has the caveat that you have the right skills in house, and unfortunately the skills required are not that common in this day and age.
What would be interesting to know is how much of the engine code will actually run on the IE+ already. Are the D&D rules hard coded or engine coded? This is probably the biggest hurdle. Not being an expert on D&D rules and from what I've read 3E simplified things....
Anyway this thread is pointless, I just don't like hearing the word impossible. Challenging, now that I will accept! Cost prohibitive, sure. Impossible, well I've solved too many impossible problems over the years to believe that there are so many impossible problems in the software world. Either that or there's more lazy people than we realise, maybe impossible means "I can't be bothered putting in the effort".
I'm done ranting now...