Ascension
MrSexton
Member Posts: 396
As I understood it, the Ascension Mod was made inhouse and supposed to have been included in the original game, but for some reason (I can't remember) it was cut. Question: will it be included in the new patch since it "should" have been included in the original game? And if not, is it a question of time or rights?
0
Comments
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/373573/#Comment_373573
So, it hasn't been supposed to be included into the original BG2:EE game.
There was a vast discussion on whether this mod should be included into BG2:EE or not: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/5418/should-bg2-ee-include-the-ascension-mod-by-david-gaider#latest 37 % voted for "Yes, it should be included as is"
You can use this thread for further discussion
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/23076/state-of-ascension#latest
As it's now, @Cuv is currently still working on this mod to be BG2:EE-compatible, although you can use the Ascension component from the Big Picture megamod (the so-called "BP-Ascension")
And we can't say whether it will be included into BG2:EE one day or not.
I stand corrected.
However, thanks for the answers!
Also it will give grounds for people to say: "Lol, those that got EE have to pay for Ascension. I have it for free on my original games."
Also IWD: EE is actually BG2-in-IWD. Heh.
I was half joking, but, and now I'm serious, actually IWD:EE is not an enhanced edition of IWD, but technically an enhanced edition of IWD-in-BG2, so a more appropriate name than IWD:EE would be
IWD-in-BGII:EE (or IWD-in-BG:EE as BG:EE and BGII:EE use the same engine)
Edit: similarly BG:EE is not an enhanced edition of BG1, but it is more close to Tutu or BGT than BG1, because it allows to play BG1 in an engine derived by the BG2 one.
However, BG:EE isn't an enhancement of Tutu or BGT, but more like an alternative to those, while IWD:EE instead really is an enhancement of IWD-in-BG2.
Anyway, IWD:EE offers more stuff than this mod so we will see how Enhanced exactly it is compared to the original.
*poke* WORK, damn you! *poke* *poke*
Also, in this paragraph Gaider calls Ascension his "offering of what might have been".
The second paragraph (noted "1)") establishes that Ascension is not an official Bioware product despite Gaider working for Bioware.
The third paragraph (noted "2)") at first seems to blatantly contradict my point: Gaider asks that no one says "this is how it should have been". But the next phrases explain what he means by that: they speak of deadlines, economic realities, and the impossibility of spending 4 months on just the ending of a game that took 6 months. In other words, Gaider is asking that we don't judge the team harshly for giving ToB the ending it had. Ascension is not how it "should" have been because the developers had no other choice, and Gaider wants to make sure that we don't blame the developers for not delivering it.
So, it is clear from Ascension's README that despite these disclaimers aimed at discharging Bioware from any responsibility regarding Ascension (either during or after production of ToB), that it is what David Gaider thought could be a more fully realized ending to ToB, and that had it not been for time constraints, something like Ascension would be the original ending of ToB, because even during development that was something Gaider himself wished for.
From this and a thorough analysis of what Ascension brings to ToB and how it greatly improves both the story and combat aspects of the game (which I won't do here, but there's wide agreement on Ascension's merits), I still strongly believe that BG2:EE should simply integrate Ascension as the default ending. Considering what is the point of making an Enhanced Edition in the first place I think it's the logical thing to do.
Perhaps astonishingly, Ascension still didn't make it into BG2:EE due, again, to time constraints...
Fighting the bhaalspawns again at the final battle is nice tho, definitely more compelling then some bhaal styled shadow wraiths.
Everything else, i didn't really care, seeing Irenicus and Bodhi again seemed to be meh, dealt with them already and they really had little place in the bhaal-focused story, seemed like an arbitrary addition that didn't make sense.
The epilogues, were ridiculously long for Ascension, so much that i remember it kinda ran over or broke the epilogue text screen itself, sometimes less is more, felt more like they wanted to write a novel about the 'adventures after BG2:TOB' for every character.
I'd love if they redid ascension to be more streamlined for BG2:EE
Perhaps astonishingly, Ascension still didn't make it into BG2:EE due, again, to time constraints...
I understand how you feel, but that is really not how it went down and that is exactly what David Gaider didn't want to be said. (Don't worry, I feel the same but the mod was based on some forum conversations/ideas and not some leftover plan). So will give you a 'like' even though I disagree with your evidence
Here's the thing, at the time it was in development, it was actively talked about on the BIS boards and some people were doing testing and allowed to comment on the forums about it. So there were many threads saying this is 'how the ending should have been'. Pity I don't have any of those threads archived and the whole forum is gone now. Probably some other people here who remember this stuff and were there too.
As for why it wasn't included in BG2:EE for release, well that was a decision based on some polls that were heavily split and wasn't time contraints - all I can say about that.
The development mod was called Balthazar/Melissan Mod - dgbeta1 - endmodBETA1.0.zip
---------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re:Balthazar/Melissan mod
Date: 10/12/01 9:07:24 PM Central Daylight Time
From: email redacted (David Gaider)
To: email redacted (Lorne Ledger)
OK, well, a good chunk of it is ready. Everything but the part where Melissan comes into the fight at the end (You can't finish the game at the moment...but you can do everything leading up to that.)
A few things you'll need:
1) The mod is an .iap file...you'll need IEEP or IEES. You can get IEES at (link is gone)
2) You need to go to IEEAIS yahoo group...its' at (link is also no more)
At the IEEAIS group, you can read the 'Partial Mod Uploaded' message to get info on what's there and not there. If you into the Files section, you need first to get the "DetectableSpellsV1.2.exe' and install that and get the endmodBETA1.0.zip file.
3) Use IEES to install the finalTOB.iap file...everything should go into the override.
Yes, you can talk about it on the board if you wish. But I'm not recruiting any other testers until I have a full mod ready to go. If someone REALLY wants to test what's there now, they had better be able to figure out how to install everything because I'm not going to explain it
You can report bugs/suggestions to me either on the Yahoo group or by my e-mail here at work. Please don't post bugs on the board just yet (once the full mod is in testing, OK, but not just yet).
Thanks,
Dave
--------------------------------------------------
I don't think there is anything here that DG would be embarrassed about. Kinda shows how development works I guess and being a bit secretive. No need for that now on this project at least.
Cuv
If the devs had been interested in genuine feedback on the issue, they could have put together their own survey, with clear parameters, and drawn conclusions from that. So if that was the rationale behind the decision... well, just another dropped ball, I suppose.