July 20 Livestream Recap
JuliusBorisov
Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,761
in News
Enjoy the full recap of today's stream.
http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/07/july-20-livestream-recap.html
Sign up for our newsletter!
P.S. During the next month, I'll be on vacation, so recaps will go out with a delay.
http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/07/july-20-livestream-recap.html
Sign up for our newsletter!
P.S. During the next month, I'll be on vacation, so recaps will go out with a delay.
7
Comments
Good job!
Damn, when I think that you guys are getting closer to make NWN perfect you find a way to disappoint me.
Baldur's Gate is also a single-player game and we have a true FPC. Beamdog is clearly letting their members' personal view decide what to do with NWN, instead of acting accordingly to the community's feedback.
What a weak argument.
Or Lego Racers: Enhanced Edition.
I'm serious. Take my money!
Nobody modded that because it is a hardcoded thing. Lots of people tried, what reflects that the community wants it. And by Beamdog's speech is easy to see that it isn't a matter of "we can't" but "we won't".
There's a reason why Tony K's AI Mod is such a fever among NWN's player. It is the closest anyone ever got to FPC.
The only way of getting FPC in NWN is through Beamdog, unfortunately. Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother to buy NWNEE as so far I'm not impressed with anything they presented (except for the NWSync).
Edit: If Beamdog is willing to gain money over old games, they shouldn't be afraid of doing "serious reworking". And apparently, they are doing precisely that. So the fact that FPC is a hard task (probably it is) is no reason to put it aside. Unless, of course, some overwhelming technical barrier appears.
The problem is that all I hear and read is @TrentOster and @PhillipDaigle saying "we don't believe that NWN should be played like that, so we will enforce our opinion instead of hearing the community's feedback".
The lack of FPC impacts severely whoever decides to play NWN as a single-player game.
I understand your argument, but I can't agree with it. And as I said, I'm not a lonely voice asking for FPC. So why push that idea aside?
I really try to understand some of Beamdog's policy, but they make a hard time for me to do it. As a customer, as a manager, as a fan.
Why update BGEE and SoD separately? Why leave the huge plothole from Soultaker? Why not add IWD spells into BG(2)EE? Why not give us the parley truce option in SoD? Why refuse to give us FPC in NWN? Why not ship BG(2)EE with its cut content (Unfinished Business)?
Sometimes looks like Beamdog does a huge effort to ignore us.
"Why update BGEE and SoD separately?"
Because they ARE separate for tablet and phone users. So they need a stable solo patch for each one.
" Why leave the huge plothole from Soultaker?"
They had a quest planned but after nostalgia junkies and trolls spewed nothing but hate for months on end, they figured it wouldn't be worth it. I've been trying to change their minds on that for awhile now.
"Why not add IWD spells into BG(2)EE?"
Good question. I don't know, but there is some complication there. Quite a few spells that are in both games work VERY DIFFERENTLY. How do you choose what to bring over? Just the spells not in BG? Do you also change the already existing spells to match the IWD versions?
"Why not give us the parley truce option in SoD?"
Probably lack of time.
"Why refuse to give us FPC in NWN?"
Because NWN isn't a party based game. Its all about playing user created content with friends. Like if Little Big Planet was an RPG. It wouldn't hurt to add, but it would take focus away from developing the things the game was intended to focus on.
"Why not ship BG(2)EE with its cut content (Unfinished Business)?"
Because that stuff was cut for a reason. A lot of it adds NOTHING to the game, and some of it is downright BAD. It even changes in game dialogue to some kind of a beta script. For example, in Irenicus' dungeon, Jaheaira says she can't raise Khalid because something was done to his body to prevent resurrection. The UB mod changes it to Jaheira just going, "meh, its the natural order, don't even try to raise him." People use this modded dialogue as evidence that Jaheira is a badly written character and it drives me batty. If Beamdog ever pulled such a D-bag move to include UB as standard, I'd riot.
What about the rage towards SoD's NPCs? The trolls didn't rage towards that? So why they decided to go ahead with it and leave the plot open? And the homophobic rage that stormed SoD, was it ignored?
An inconsistent policy is a bad policy. Chose those that are closer to PnP. IMHO yes, the spells should have consistent behavior through the games, but just adding the IWD spells to BG would be a huge step towards an enhancement. Doing this would not create the problem "what behavior to choose?". So why add that scene that is hugely anticlimactic? It could be removed completely. The way it works now just makes me feel stupid for trusting for a second that my opinion would matter. That's your opinion about how the game should be played. Let me remind you that there is a single player campaign (with two single-player expansions), single player premium modules, single player community-created-campaigns, and etcetera. Even the new source of revenue for Beamdog (DoD) is a single player module.
NWN gives us the option to play as a multiplayer-content-created game, but is much more than that.
As I said before: giving FPC doesn't impact those who want to play NWN as a MMO. Go ahead and do it. But not giving it makes the game close to unplayable for those, like, that just want to play the single player. I'll give you that point and I'll be easy on Beamdog now that the things that should be shipped are being shipped (Kivan x Tazok; Branwen x Tranzig; Yeslick x Rieltar comes immediately to my mind for this topic).
"Doing this would not be an issue for tablet/phone users, not an issue for PC/Mac users. "
Tablet and phone users have consitently been the last to be updated. Its probably simpler to patch the individual games, roll it out for the mobile crowd, and then carry the changes over to the bundle users. Imagine if SoD+BG got patched first, only for beamdog to find out that because of the way it was structured, that they would have to start from scratch AGAIN for the mobile crowd. At least this way, we know that every component is compatible across all systems.
"What about the rage towards SoD's NPCs? The trolls didn't rage towards that? So why they decided to go ahead with it and leave the plot open? And the homophobic rage that stormed SoD, was it ignored?"
There were teasings that Beamdog was considering adding the SoD npcs to BG2, but was likely abandoned for the same reasons. Remember how vocal the hate was for awhile, (someone killed themselves over it). I didn't address the npcs, because your question was directed entirely at the Soultaker.
"So why add that scene that is hugely anticlimactic? It could be removed completely. The way it works now just makes me feel stupid for trusting for a second that my opinion would matter. "
Entirely subjective. I really enjoyed that whole sequence. No real point in arguing over it. Some people liked it, some didn't. I think there is a lot of mod potential here though.
"That's your opinion about how the game should be played. Let me remind you that there is a single player campaign (with two single-player expansions), single player premium modules, single player community-created-campaigns, and etcetera. Even the new source of revenue for Beamdog (DoD) is a single player module."
Not just my opinion. Trent envisioned it as such when he made it the first time. Are all these modules REALLY single player only? I suspect they can all be played with friends. And implementing FPC would take dev time and resources away from other areas. So it probably would affect the multiplayer in some way. I'm not a fan of it, you aren't a fan of it, but its still a multiplayer game first.
There are some components I don't like: How the Boo kidnapping quest drops you into the druid grove (even if you never been to Trademeet) and Artemis Entreri appearance might be little over the top. But overall, I actually like that most of the components add just a little things here and there.
And I don't think that most of the UB content was cut due to designers' decisions, but mostly because of time constraints. But I could be wrong here.
The only time I felt close to this disappointed in whole Baldur's Gate series was when I noticed I couldn't side with the Shadow Druids in the original BG. That felt like a big shame at that time, and this one is unfortunately a bigger one. I know ThacoBell is the only that keeps voicing this constantly, but actually he is not the only one that is expecting this. I think it's fair to expect Beamdog to make the story of the whole series consistent, instead of expecting modders to fix it. I know Beamdog is a relatively smallish(but successful IMO) company, so how about fixing the immersion in a smallish way with the smallest amount of new content then? I think BG series deserve that much.
That's bad management, my friend. If this team were in my hands I would make simultaneous, small and constant updates. I was just giving an example of the inconsistent behavior of Beamdog when it comes to trolls. You either face them or serve them, but Beamdog decided to pursuit half-measures. The trolls will keep trolling no matter what Beamdog does.
The lack of pulse to handle this, publishing their content in a crippled way to praise trolls is bad management in my book. Subjective, indeed, but walk with me for a while.
You discover that there is a crusade happening. You learn about, you meet its very charismatic leader and you can't join it. And you previously learn about the devilish intentions of the leader's right-hand, have proof of it and can do nothing about it.
But you're right, no point arguing here. BG(2)EE/IWDEE are single player games that can be played as multiplayer, so this argument is not solid IMHO. The fact is, NWN have cannon elements that were designed for a single player experience. And it is also a fact that giving FPC hugely changes the way the single-player campaigns (plural) and modules (also plural) can be played with no direct and/or substantial effect over how the multiplayer is handled.
Beamdog is in front of the choice of giving a significant group of players what they want, and improve their experience with the game in the process, or giving nothing to no one and prejudice a group of players.
It is not like we are facing a sum-zero situation. Building Soultaker's plot would also take the devs time and resource, should we also let it go? I don't think so and I believe you agree with me. But the FPC's situation is worse than Soultaker's one, as it can't be solved by modding.
Thank you for such a pleasent and polite discussion. Feel free to drop anything you want in my inbox and I'll gladly answer when I have the time.
You points definitely have merit. Everything I'm discussing about Beamdog's practices are based on what I have seen around the forums in the last 5 years and since SoD's release, but it is largely speculation. I do want to just point out one thing.
" The fact is, NWN have cannon elements that were designed for a single player experience."
The fact is, it wasn't. The biggest thing about NWN was the online functionality, along with the editor to allow players to play with and DM wach other. The solo campaign was very much just an example adventure. Its all about creating and sharing content with others.
FPC: Yes please! I bought NWN when it was first released thinking it was going to be the same style as BG or ID. The fact that I could only control one character was the biggest disappointment for me. They could just make it module specific, and it wouldn't have to affect multiplayer at all, but this is a major feature that I would love to have (as someone who really only plays single player).
Icewind Dale and BG Spells: Also, yes please. This would be a great enhancement, much like adding the different kits to the other games. I think they should start with whichever are missing and adding those, then maybe going for some consistent rules between the two games. I would just like to have them all there in both games. I thought about making a ticket for this, but I couldn't find a list of spells that were not included in both.
Unfinished Business: I've never played with mods, but I think they could go through, polish up, and add some of the cut content. Obviously they would need to make sure additions don't affect a character negatively, like in the Jaheira example, but other cut content could be elaborated on and added. It may just need to be done on a case by case situation.
Soultaker Plot: I'm with you @ThacoBell ! We just need to make Trent understand that there is actually a demand for it.
Downgrade BGEE and deal with things that are already solved in the patch.
Disable SoD and not enjoy a content that we paid for.
Either way, we lose something. Beamdog could have avoided this mismatch by holding BGEE's patch or, best case scenario, updating both.
Anyway, looks like the next update will fix this. Good. I sincerely hope that Beamdog has the wisdom to release both patches at the same time this time.
If you want to do a full play through of the game, using a beta is not a good idea. It can be frustrating to know that you won't have the latest bug fixes, but you also avoid regressions (that should be fixed when the final version is released), you avoid compatibility problem with mods that may not yet be updated, ...
Just an FYI, the recap mentions that after the BG:EE and SoD patch, there will be one "final" update for IWD:EE to bring it up to speed with the other IE games. I'm not sure what the writer's intention was, but this sentence can be interpreted as the 2.5 update being the last patch for IWD:EE, after which development would be suspended. In the case that wasn't the intended meaning, the wording should probably be improved.
The problem is not so much the addition of the spells--IWDification has done that for a while and, from the bug reports, does it fairly well--but the integration. I.e. adding all of these amazing druidic spells and then not having the Cloakwood druids use them against the party is suboptimal, at best. You need, at a minimum, to adjust multiple creature's spellbooks, multiple creature's AI scripting*, and also place arcane spell scrolls throughout the game. This is a massive task and is the sole** reason why IWDification remains on its fifth beta instead of v1.
* Bonus points when all of that AI/spellbook work also breaks everyone's favorite mods like SCS.
** Well, OK, working on the patches and my chronic laziness may also be factors. Maybe. Perhaps.
One person could do this much for free as a hobby. Why can't a professional team do this for money?
We can count in one hand where there are druids to fight:
Cloakwood, Druid's Grove and the Shadow Druid that kills another druid in a random area in BGEE. All this considered it would be what... 10 types of creatures? Less?
Wizards would be more complicated indeed, but it's not like it would be as troublesome as FPC to NWN or a seventh party member for BG(2)EE.