Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

What the hell have you people done to my beloved game?!

12467

Comments

  • Ludwig_IILudwig_II Member Posts: 201
    edited February 20
    Though there are still bugs like Ranger Stronghold bug and pathfinding issues, I think there are not many of them. And I think the game still is at the best state it has ever been with the latest version. There is no going back to vanilla or tutu or v1.3 etc. for me ever.

    In terms of UI, I dislike some new screens like the new Spellbook screen introduced in v2.0 and the Journal screen, especially in BG2EE. Thankfully there are great UI mods, so I use UI mods for those two. But I agree with previous posters about SOD UI being the best one.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,207
    Oh yeah, I hate the new spellbook screen and the way dialogue is displayed. I hate the way the record screen is divided up.

    But we have the power to fix that stuff now. In 1.3 you just had to live with it.

    Adul
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 1,853
    yeah i don't think we would have the ui mods we currently have if not for 2.0

    Adul
  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,422
    @lefreut that's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that the 1.3 games were old & busted. Which is why (getting back to the original point) when the OP talked about "my beloved game" after taking a "long break" from playing, most people did not assume they meant the "beloved" 1.3 patch. Because, that's crazy.

    Whereas, for all that the original BG1 is technically inferior by today's standards, it was amazing when it came out, and truly worthy of being deemed someone's "beloved game." So that's where the conversation went.

    I don't know which version is the OP beloved game. Most of the recent posts were about 1.3 vs 2.+, hence my answer.

    Saying that 1.3 is old and busted is your opinion not a fact. Everyone is free to have his/her own opinion. For some people, it can only take one bug/regression in an area they care a lot to make a patch unplayable for them.

    Yes some people hate v2.+ only for the sake of trolling, but others have valid arguments. I don't see why you can't accept that someone may like v1.3 more. Myself, I don't even know which one I like more as both have good and bad things.

    AndreaColomboAdulRavenslightKilivitz
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,628
    Raduziel wrote: »
    I don't hate v 2.+ but I do hate everyone that points out what is wrong with the UI because once you see it you can't unsee haha.

    Seriously, I would never notice 99% of Adul's list, now I can't look at the game without thinking "how the hell that passed me by for so long?".

    Hate you guys. Keep doing a great job.

    luckily for me its not really an issue to i dont even notice it that much and disappears from memory, now if nvidia drivers would start playing nice with BG EE that would be great

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,207
    lefreut wrote: »
    Yes some people hate v2.+ only for the sake of trolling, but others have valid arguments. I don't see why you can't accept that someone may like v1.3 more.

    Who said anything about trolling, and who said anything about not accepting others' opinions?

    I do tend to put more stock in my own opinion than in contradictory ones, of course. It is based on reason and facts. For instance, I've yet to hear any arguments why you would prefer to play, say, BG2EE 1.3 over pre-EE TOB.

  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,912
    edited February 20
    I do tend to put more stock in my own opinion than in contradictory ones, of course. It is based on reason and facts. For instance, I've yet to hear any arguments why you would prefer to play, say, BG2EE 1.3 over pre-EE TOB.

    I'm honestly not sure that I would. It's been quite a while since I've played either, I tend to put more of my attention into BG1/BG:EE. However, three things that immediately come to mind that I probably would miss from BGII:EE are quick loot (even with its initial bugs), window background transparency for the various UI screens, and middle mouse button viewport scrolling. Those are just off the top of my head, there's almost certainly more stuff that I'm forgetting about.

    Reason and facts only go so far here. It's ultimately down to what features and issues you care about most, and which versions include them.

    Kilivitz
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 18,807
    UI posts - please wait for the blog entry with replies to the community questions, everything should become clear after that.

    AndreaColomboAdullefreutStummvonBordwehr
  • KilivitzKilivitz Member Posts: 1,456
    edited February 20
    My main criticism of the EEs is aimed at the fact that in maintaining the legacy of such a classic series, Beamdog seems to miss the mark just as often (if not more often) as they hit it.

    Some changes should be considered objective improvements: fixing long-standing bugs, supporting modern resolutions, making the engine more robust (and thus expanding the possibilities for modding), etc. There are also certain quality of life improvements that while not essential, certainly improve the experience for new players and veterans alike: instant loading times, zooming in and out, quick loot, and so on. No one in their right mind would argue that those aren't welcome.

    However, the EEs also wander into the murky territory of subjective changes and additions. Was it really worth it to replace the classic movies with low-budget versions? Was implementing an arena-type adventure such as The Black Pits the best use of their limited resources? Are the new NPCs and their quests integrated in a way that doesn't overshadow (or stand out too much from) the original content? The answers to those questions vary wildly depending on who you ask.

    And of course, it also matters *why* you're asking these questions. It can be argued that not pushing the limits of what these games can be defeats the purpose of the EEs in the first place. On the other hand, it can be argued that the purpose of the EEs should be above all to preserve the legacy of the games and keep them accessible to everyone as old software gradually becomes incompatible with newer hardware - there's a reason why these titles are so popular after all, so one should be careful not to try and fix that which isn't broken.

    When you trace down Beamdog's path with the Infinity Engine EEs, from the first BG to PST, it becomes clear that it's been a long process of trial and error. BG:EE throws quite a lot at the wall to see what sticks, while PST:EE is much more conservative, to the point of being at its heart a work of restoration.

    My personal opinion is that BG:EE, being the first trial in the process, has suffered the most. In my mind, PST:EE is what BG:EE should have been, even if it doesn't hold the same reputation of untouchable classic that PST does. I think they could have reached a compromise of bringing it closer to the sequel without sacrificing the quirkiness, personality and so much of the spirit of the original game.

    For all its objective superiority in most technical aspects, I still can't help but see BG:EE in its current state as the restored Ecce Homo version of Baldur's Gate - and yes, I'm fully aware of how hyperbolic and subjective I'm being here. And I'll also admit that much of my current impression has to do with the UI, of which I had written about extensively but will hold off talking about until we read what the devs have to say about it.

    AdulAndreaColombosarevok57Ravenslight
  • KilivitzKilivitz Member Posts: 1,456
    edited February 20
    If we're going to turn this debate into a cherry picking contest, I can also say "whenever I see people saying how great 2.5 is, all I can think of is the pathfinding bug that gets characters bumping into each other instead of moving forward". It accomplishes nothing.

    Every build has bugs. That some (or most of them) of them were fixed doesn't invalidate the argument that the game as a whole might have deteriorated in other areas.

    AdullefreutRavenslight
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,912
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Whenever I see people saying how great 1.3 was, all I can think of is the 1.3 bug where casting "luck" permantely removed the weapon proficiencies of the person it was cast on.

    I don't think anyone here has said it was great (other than the OP, possibly), only that some of us think it's possibly the best that we have. There's a big difference.

    And I do agree with @Kilivitz in that I too would have preferred a more conservative, restorative approach to BG:EE. It's a shame that, because it came first, it had to be the initial test subject of Beamdog's refinement of the EE process. It definitely has the most rough edges and questionable design choices of all the EEs.

    sarevok57StummvonBordwehrRavenslight
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 18,807
    edited February 20
    That's not a promotional screenshot, @Kilivitz . It's just the screenshot from the game, as is, for a general post on social media, designed to have a good talk with audience beyond this forum.

  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,422
    UI posts - please wait for the blog entry with replies to the community questions, everything should become clear after that.

    Well if it's this:

    For the time being, however, all of the UI work we’re doing is centered squarely around the console versions of the games, so any changes to the PC UI won’t happen for a while.

    It's a huge disappointment.
    That's not a promotional screenshot, @Kilivitz . It's just the screenshot from the game, as is, for a general post on social media, designed to have a good talk with audience beyond this forum.

    It takes less than 5 minutes to edit the UI and fix the panel positioning. The person that post this screenshot should have push the team to fix this so that he/she can promote the game with a better looking screenshot.

    KilivitzAdulAndreaColomboLudwig_II
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 18,807
    Really? Do you really think so? It might take minutes to fix something (although I'm not sure about that), but then comes:
    - getting builds done
    - QA testing
    - more QA testing
    - preparing builds for shipping to all the multiple stores.

    Just stop for a moment, and try to imagine this work process.

    Also, try asking yourself what you would do if you have hundreds of things you can potentially fix, grading from "A" issues to "D" issues, and what you would pick to fix. Then multiply that on the amount of games to support. Then multiply that on the amount of platforms these games are being played.

  • KilivitzKilivitz Member Posts: 1,456
    edited February 20
    When it comes to this specific bug (the misaligned store panels), there's no uneducated guessing going on - it's a simple (to the point of trivial), well-known fix to a bug that's impossible to miss, specially if you play at 1080p or higher as so many people do.

    What's more, the exact steps to fix it have been documented in the UI modding subforum for years. And the fix itself has been tested by pretty much everyone who's installed any UI overhaul mod since then.

    That's why it's so baffling that it wasn't in the 2.5 patch. In the end, it comes down to explanations such as, they're not properly testing the game (I mean, how long can you playtest without accessing any stores?) or just couldn't be arsed, or have serious problems prioritizing fixes.

    And before I get accused of being a neurotic nitpicker - guys, it's not the bug itself I'm whining about. I'm merely using it as an example of the seemingly nonsensical approach the studio currently has to developing these games.

    I mean, it's funny Julius should mention the whole grading of issues from "A" to "D", because I'm left thinking of how exactly color-coding Flaming Fist officers and Black Talon bandits as "good guys" and "bad guys" grades in that scale.

    AdulAndreaColomboRaduzielRavenslight
  • masteralephmasteraleph Member Posts: 61
    Kilivitz wrote: »

    When you trace down Beamdog's path with the Infinity Engine EEs, from the first BG to PST, it becomes clear that it's been a long process of trial and error. BG:EE throws quite a lot at the wall to see what sticks, while PST:EE is much more conservative, to the point of being at its heart a work of restoration.

    My personal opinion is that BG:EE, being the first trial in the process, has suffered the most. In my mind, PST:EE is what BG:EE should have been, even if it doesn't hold the same reputation of untouchable classic that PST does. I think they could have reached a compromise of bringing it closer to the sequel without sacrificing the quirkiness, personality and so much of the spirit of the original game.

    Interestingly, I've also always been unhappy with BGEE in particular- but mostly because it didn't change enough. I know that ties into their agreements with the various powers-that-be, but my #1 change would've been an extensive expansion of NPC dialogue, to bring it in line with BG2. I also consider BG2 to be a vastly superior game to BG1, though, which I know makes me something of an odd duck on these boards.

    ThacoBell
  • SteveRogers41SteveRogers41 Member Posts: 32

    Kilivitz wrote: »


    Interestingly, I've also always been unhappy with BGEE in particular- but mostly because it didn't change enough. I know that ties into their agreements with the various powers-that-be, but my #1 change would've been an extensive expansion of NPC dialogue, to bring it in line with BG2. I also consider BG2 to be a vastly superior game to BG1, though, which I know makes me something of an odd duck on these boards.

    I think the idea was to "enhance" BG1, but not necessarily to make it as good as BG2. I certainly agree with you that BG2 is the superior game, and that's just the way it is. I don't think the developers could change that. As for BG1EE not changing enough, I felt like this particular one received the biggest upgrades. Let's not forget all the things classic BG1 lacked: class kits, dual-wielding, BG2's character models, etc. BG1EE gave us so many of the great things that originated from BG2. Whereas with BG2EE, a lot of things were already there and didn't need to be added. For me, BG1EE gave the game a whole lot of replayability for me that wasn't there beforehand. I played the crap out of BG2, but didn't get the same amount of enjoyment out of BG1 until the enhanced editions came along.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 961
    edited February 21
    Kilivitz wrote: »


    Interestingly, I've also always been unhappy with BGEE in particular- but mostly because it didn't change enough. I know that ties into their agreements with the various powers-that-be, but my #1 change would've been an extensive expansion of NPC dialogue, to bring it in line with BG2. I also consider BG2 to be a vastly superior game to BG1, though, which I know makes me something of an odd duck on these boards.

    I think the idea was to "enhance" BG1, but not necessarily to make it as good as BG2. I certainly agree with you that BG2 is the superior game, and that's just the way it is. I don't think the developers could change that. As for BG1EE not changing enough, I felt like this particular one received the biggest upgrades. Let's not forget all the things classic BG1 lacked: class kits, dual-wielding, BG2's character models, etc. BG1EE gave us so many of the great things that originated from BG2. Whereas with BG2EE, a lot of things were already there and didn't need to be added. For me, BG1EE gave the game a whole lot of replayability for me that wasn't there beforehand. I played the crap out of BG2, but didn't get the same amount of enjoyment out of BG1 until the enhanced editions came along.

    Objectively BG 1 has probably been updates the most, however, it does not feel like because so many players were already using some TuTu variant.

    My feeling on the new contents were mixed as well, in the 1.x versions I played I always ran into some bugs. First it was a blurry screen, later on one of the first Candlekeep tutorial questions (with the Identify scroll) was broken. Not major, but also nothing I want to see in a game that used to run very stable without many remaining bugs for me.

    When we came to 2.x it had some new issues, e.g. the last one I played (I think it was 2.3 or 2.4) was the first time my BG sometimes crashed when saving or traveling. Very annoying.

    Gameplay wise there are other changes that feel out of place for me, e.g. the changes to the sleep spells (which also broke Emotion), the updated icons, the change to Poison Weapon that was made to balance the overpowered Blackguard but affected the Assassin as well... the list goes on in that regard.

    One of my pet peeves is the implementation of the int requirement to scribe scrolls. Per PnP the correct way would be a int requirement to cast spells, which is much more meaningful and strict. Now you just circumvent the limit by passing around the Golden Ioun Stone or by drinking Potions of Genius. So now it is just annoying busy-work, instead of actually adding something to the game. According to Beamdog this was fixing a bug, as the restriction was there but not working. But who knows if part of the original team did not decide to leave it out when they tested ToB (the first time the restriction would have mattered for NPCs), when they thought about it would add little more than annoying the player?

    However, what is great is the across platform availability and the improved modding support. So I am still happy the EEs exist - and I know that there other players like @subtledoctor who unlike me think the gameplay should have been changed more, while I personally prefer staying true to the originals and 2nd edition AD&D. In fact, how much Beamdog took from 3rd edition is another pet peeve for me. Admittedly, I am not even a fan of Sorcerers.

    Post edited by Ammar on
    AdulRavenslight
  • AaezilAaezil Member Posts: 166
    Imagine being that upset about a tiny gap in the shop window

    SkatanDreadKhanrealshemp
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,912
    Perhaps a soultaker resolution and an awesome UI for everybody?

    Huzzah!

    StummvonBordwehrRavenslight
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,590
    Ammar wrote: »
    One of my pet peeves is the implementation of the int requirement to scribe scrolls. Per PnP the correct way would be a int requirement to cast spells, which is much more meaningful and strict. Now you just circumvent the limit by passing around the Golden Ioun Stone or by drinking Potions of Genius. So now it is just annoying busy-work, instead of actually adding something to the game. According to Beamdog this was fixing a bug, as the restriction was there but not working. But who knows if part of the original team did not decide to leave it out when they tested ToB (the first time the restriction would have mattered for NPCs), when they thought about it would add little more than annoying the player?

    Actually, you're wrong. In PnP Intelligence serves to determine which circle of spell you may cast, your learning chance and the number of spells per circle you can have.
    94v64zs6q7mh.jpg

    Skatan
Sign In or Register to comment.