@Ward it's a shame more people haven't played the gold box games to understand how good they were. To suggest that the gold box games were limited in their capacity for either plot or characterization due to limited technology is completely false.
to summarise some of many points: - with its detailed art, wide variety of quests and treasure, and tactical combat system - ultimately succeeded in its goal of bringing a standardized form of AD&D to the home computer, and laid the foundation for other future gold box AD&D role-playing games - what many gamers consider to be the epitome of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons RPGs. These games were so great that people today are using MoSlo in droves to slow down their Pentium III-1000 MHz enough to play these gems.
@Metal_Hurlant Because the game had little to speak of in the way of an 'environment', you can argue that the Gold Box games had more capacity for plot and characterization. The fact that there was far less visable world to engulf yourself in made it the programmer's responsibility to compensate with a kickass plot.
I haven't played any of those games, but that's just common sense. Less technology probably means even more story.
One of the most incredibly inaccurate and ridiculous statements in my 35 years of gaming. Obviously you've never played the Goldbox games. In future, it's just easier to say you've never played them.
Not that I need to justify my gaming habits to you, but as a matter of fact, I have.
What you're doing is using a distraction (eg. limited technology) to divert attention away from the fact that you haven't played the Goldbox games. Just to give you an example of how good the goldbox games were:
Pool of Radiance was the first goldbox game:
- won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1988 - praised the game's graphics and its role-playing adventure and combat aspects. - well-regarded was the ability to export player characters from Pool of Radiance to subsequent SSI games in the series. - the best RPG ever to grace the C64, or indeed any other computer etc.
None of which I'm disputing. But you seem to be claiming that the Goldbox games hold up now, in comparison to, say, the various Infinity Engine games. In which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. There is such a thing as improvement and progress over time, after all.
@shawne It depends, the Gold Box games only have words to describe the environment. If the environment is there it speaks for itself.
Those games are still holding up because there are people that enjoy them. Equally, there are people that would like to play games with interactive environments.
Well all this talk is very nice and all, but the reasons presented by people that defend a vanilla remake of IWD aren't strong enough for me (and for other people too as i see).
Just to point, use the nostalgia argument to match an 30 years ago game develop with an actual game develop is most than insane, is regression. But i'm not going to mess in this ball of problems again.
As i said before, i would not support a vanilla remake of Icewind Dale but i would support an overhaul Icewind Dale that introduce a personal based content (NPCs, main char, links between the characters and the plot as why they care for that quest among others).
Actually yeah. IWD was very boring storywise, not that anyone ever claimed it was to be anything else than combat oriented action game. I prefer strong story over action purely for action's sake so BG and especially Planescape: Torment were very addicting to me. Hopefully Planescape: Torment will be Beamdog's next project (after BG2).
I would jump for joy at an IWD:EE. IWD is the harder, more mean cousin of Baldur's Gate. I enjoy it tremendously for its challenge and its atmosphere (which it does great.) Someone earlier stated how much they enjoy the frozen north setting and I am in that same boat. There is something majestic, mysterious and at the same time comforting about that setting.
There are times in IWD where i think to myself: I wish i was really there in that cold town huddled around that lake. Id just rest in my small home next to the fire with coffee and be content riding out the winter. Never had any moments like that in any BG game (not to say they are bad, i absolutely love them.)
The IWD world is way prettier. The items look cooler. The level of character control in IWD2 was spectacular. Other than that it was a dungeon crawl where BG was like a book. That is why BG is best. I'd rather see BG3 using IWD 2 formats but with a BG plot
I should point out, i dont think we will see an IWD2 EE anytime soon either because of how much newer it was. It uses a completely revamped IE, even further so than BG ToB. It still holds up incredibly well today on newer systems at high resolutions and looks spectacular.
I honestly think enhancing IWD is actually harder than it looks, harder than enhancing BG.
There are no NPCs recruitable in the game, so putting additional ones with banter etc, might be good, but it makes the game closer to BG.
IWD used 2nd edition rules while IWD2 used 3rd edition. This might actually prove a hassle. What do they do? Use 2nd stuff for 1 and 3rd for 2? Or use the same thing for both? Whatever they decide to do, IWD2 will have a lot of work rule-wise.
In my humble opinion, the only way i see IWD getting enhanced is if the source art is available somewhere, and Beamdog makes a high definition version of it. That way, they do what they couldn't with BG, and they let modders mod both games even more, putting NPCs and more in IWD, and using the improved art of IWD:EE for BG enhanced.
So,in short : If the source art is available and you can make it HD with new animations/graphics and stuff, go for it. If it's not available and we're gonna see something like BG:EE, don't bother honestly.
IF that's the only reason you have for saying it's a bad game and not up to par, can't you just try to appreciate the things that are still decent but just aren't for you? It's like saying Planescape is a bad game because it doesn't have much combat.... personal taste...
Once more with feeling: I've never said that IWD is a bad game. What I've said is that characterization is an integral part of any story, in any medium (unlike, say, combat) and that IWD would be better off if the player had access to party members who could provide depth via their personalities and dialogue.
My comment was directed at OP, not at you. Puts your replies in an interesting light.
I like the game for what it is - a more cerebral, tactical Diablo. But, I really have no desire to see it enhanced, unless it was a really major overhaul. Add Brynn Shander as an Athkatla-style city hub for some much needed nonlinear questing, or even just keeping the game the same, but adding the option of recruiting NPCs with their own banter and quests and back-stories, then I'd be excited.
@Kyoshiro80 But there is a story. Why does nobody play two minutes past the Vale of Shadows and SEE? It's so frustrating. You get a story and combat, both things which BG1 didn't do so well. I won't get started again. :P
@Kyoshiro80 But there is a story. Why does nobody play two minutes past the Vale of Shadows and SEE? It's so frustrating. You get a story and combat, both things which BG1 didn't do so well. I won't get started again. :P
Instead of bemoaning the fact that no one feels compelled to play past that point in the game, you might want to stop and ask yourself why that may be. A good story needs more than just plot points.
@Shawne I want to know why you care nothing for the characters you create?
The only thing IWD is missing over Baldur's gate is background chatter from NPCs.
You could turn Baldur's gate into a single character Hack and slash and it wouldn't make a single difference to the story. The same way adding NPC's to IWD would not add anything to the Icewind dale story over the 6 characters you can create yourself.
@Shawne Can you not swallow your pride and leave me be? I thought our pathetic banter ended. Take @Jolanthus' advice and have pride in the personalities you create with your own imagination, than the poorly written and uncustomizable NPCs based off somebody else's imagination you may expect from NPC mods.
Hell compile your own WeiDU mod if you like. Rip apart the other IWD NPC mod and change the characters, bend them to your will, but don't go nay-saying IWD:EE to Beamdog when there are people who get more enjoyment from it. You don't have to like everything.
The NPCs in Baldur's Gate add nothing to the story, only idle chatter which is few and far between. There is no difference between the NPCs in BG and the NPCs in IWD other than the fact that the ones in BG were characterized very well. If you want the same characterization, pick the best soundsets in IWD (many to choose from there) and make some great friends.
@Jolanthus: There's a very distinct difference between creating a character and creating six characters. For all that your typical Western RPG protagonist is a mostly-blank slate, interaction with other party members tends to reflect back on the PC. You are able to learn/express more about your "self" through those secondary characters. These are basic narrative principles, and they're not exclusive to video games: try reading a novel that has only one character (or, alternately, six characters that speak, act and think exactly alike) and see how far an interesting plot can take you.
Now, you're right to point out that anyone can play BG as a solo experience... but I rather think that if that's what you're looking for, your interests might be served better with Diablo or Torchlight, as they're designed specifically to favor gameplay over story. And so is IWD.
@Ward: If you're going to insist on portraying yourself as the only person who understands the "true value" of IWD while everyone else is tragically mistaken, be prepared to have that assertion challenged. Granted, you make it easy given how you contradict yourself with every other sentence - are BG's NPCs "poorly written" or "characterized very well"? Regardless, I have as much right to dispute your opinions as you do to state them.
IWD doesn't have NPCs they're all PCs, it's a single person playing a game with 6 pre-made PCs. You can do the same by taking a D&D book and try to play alone creating everything (well... i did it a lot when younger ^^), it's funny for a time but you will easly get bored. I played this game to the end once, as the main plot was interesting enough for it, but i just don't feel the replay appeal in IWD.
By another side, when you play a game with some pre-generated NPCs, the game teases you, there's an outside issue provoking you to react. That's raise a lot the replay interest.
This is one of some points in IWD that take off the replay interest, and the most objective one, as the others are more subjective, so let's just forget the person behind those words here, and just evaluate what is said by the merit of the own words.
If you agree to the words exposed above, then you also agree that to fix this, based in replay interest, an Enhanced Edition should introduce proper NPCs. If this is done, i believe the community will be a step closer to reach an agreement about the proper course of a IWD Enhanced Edition.
@Shawne I didn't say the BG ones were poorly written. I said the poorly written you MAY expect from NPC mods.
I pretend ONE of the PCs is me, the rest are my friends. They shut up but have personalities. Good work BlackIsle. I don't act like I'm controlling 6 summoned goblin drones.
@Ward: It seemed as though you equating BG NPCs and mod NPCs - if that's not the case, I withdraw the comment.
But your goblin drone metaphor is exactly how IWD works. I mean, good for you if you can make up distinct backgrounds and personalities for six characters, but it's not like the game acknowledges any differentiation between them. Consider that in a PnP D&D game - or multiplayer BG, for that matter - six PCs often means six players. They each have their own RP story to perform, and while you are all nominally playing through the same plot, they're not always going to follow the same script.
@kamuizin is correct to point out that IWD offers little replay value beyond the mechanical: the game doesn't care if I have an all-Paladin party or a half drow, half gnome group, the plot will always play out in the same linear, unidirectional fashion.
@Kyoshiro80 But there is a story. Why does nobody play two minutes past the Vale of Shadows and SEE? It's so frustrating. You get a story and combat, both things which BG1 didn't do so well. I won't get started again. :P
I did not say there isn't a story, I said there isn't a compelling one to my experience. I find it very frustrating that you assume outright that I've only played IWD only a few minutes and based my opinion on that. I mean, what game can you assess in that short a time (well ok, there might be a few rare occasions)? No, I have tried IWD for several hours at a time: several times with somewhat randomly thrown together characters and other times with careful consideration about character backgrounds and party dynamics. And every time the end result was the same: hack n' slash over and over again, which I wouldn't mind if I would care the least bit about the characters. And that can't happen without a good story that grabs you with it for the ride until the end. Needless to say BG did that in 30 mins or even less, BG2 in a few minutes and my god, Planescape: Torment almost did that during the intro cinematic!
@kamuizin: is correct to point out that IWD offers little replay value beyond the mechanical: the game doesn't care if I have an all-Paladin party or a half drow, half gnome group, the plot will always play out in the same linear, unidirectional fashion.
Well...I just finished another IWD run-through. I hadn't played it in so long, I could hardly remember anything about it. It was fun re-discovering things all over again. I really like the NPCs in BG/BG2 and I do sometimes think it's a shame IWD doesn't have that, but as other people have said, you can make up your own characters! As for the story...I think BG ties you in to the story more, it makes it more and more about you, the Bhaalspawn protagonist, as the series progresses, whereas in IWD your party is dumped in Easthaven with no real motive to follow the story other than that there's nothing else to do! But once you get going, there is a story there, as much of one as BG has, just less centralised on you. Anyway, I think it's a game that merits an EE, although for me BG and BG2 should still be first on the list. (Which they are, so yay!)
Both series are different i think by design. I for one tend to like changes on occasion. I played IWD1 after playing the original BG1 and 2 and i found it refreshing. I'd had my fill(a wonderful fill) but still had enough story in my brain to last a long time and needed something different and IWD was it. No big complex story, (but anyone who says iwd had NO story are nuts) just enough story and a lot of battles. Me likey. IWD2 not so much. After iwd and it's sequel heart if winter, i needed to go back to something with story but i can't remember what that was lol. It's the reason i liked SWTOR so much where many haters dissed on it. After playing all the garbage mmo's out there that are basically the same games with the same cookie cutter mechanics, just different lore, it was a nice change to play something heavy on story. But that's just me and i've no intention of arguing with powergamers over swtor.
And as someone pointed out early in the discussion before it broke down into arguing, (the fellow who's name i forget and i'm too lazy to search for) who put the little vid of the kuldahar theme music, i agree. The musical score in iwd was just fantastic. So in conclusion, to answer the original question. I'd like to see an IWD1:EE as long as the team can negotiate a better contract to make more changes and additions to the original game and the original resources can be tracked down and used(If original bg resources couldn't be found doubtful Iwd can either).
As for the discussion over the old gold box edition D&D's, i loved them. They were the cat's meow in those days, but they do not hold a candle to the games like bg and iwd or pstm. I'd still love to go back and play them though for nostalgia's sake as i still have the Silver Archives edition i bought yrs ago that had every single silver and gold box D&D game ever made from pool of radiance to curse of the azure bonds to hillsfar and gateway to the savage frontier(with many more games in between). Only my lack of experience with a dos emulators and win7's game unfriendly issues are stopping me. Happy gaming
Just to remember in Baldur's Gate you CAN create the 6 characters if you want, just start a multi-player game and you have the option to fill the 6 character slots as Icewind Dale. However baldur's Gate has more than that, BG has many awersome NPCs.
With this point raised, anyone that see the BG X IWD issue now will clearly note that the lack of NPCs in IWD isn't a difference it's lack of quality.
To resume: I can do everything in BG that i do in IWD, however IWD doesn't do everything that BG do. And to worse the situation, IWD was launched after BG, so it's a regression of quality.
@kamuizin I wouldn't really call that a 'regression of quality'. IWD is a different game. If it was published as a BG sequel but lacked prominent features of the original I could maybe see your point, but as it is I don't see why the two games have to be held in such close comparison. What IWD does, it does to a high standard of quality, I would argue. If you don't like what IWD does, well, that's another matter entirely. But that doesn't make it worse: just different in a way that suits your personal tastes less. I don't know why so people claim that 'IWD was worse' instead of just saying 'I enjoyed IWD less'. Why be so negative?
Comments
Wikipedia has a good article on the legacy of Pool of Radiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Radiance
to summarise some of many points:
- with its detailed art, wide variety of quests and treasure, and tactical combat system
- ultimately succeeded in its goal of bringing a standardized form of AD&D to the home computer, and laid the foundation for other future gold box AD&D role-playing games
- what many gamers consider to be the epitome of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons RPGs. These games were so great that people today are using MoSlo in droves to slow down their Pentium III-1000 MHz enough to play these gems.
I haven't played any of those games, but that's just common sense. Less technology probably means even more story.
Those games are still holding up because there are people that enjoy them. Equally, there are people that would like to play games with interactive environments.
Just to point, use the nostalgia argument to match an 30 years ago game develop with an actual game develop is most than insane, is regression. But i'm not going to mess in this ball of problems again.
As i said before, i would not support a vanilla remake of Icewind Dale but i would support an overhaul Icewind Dale that introduce a personal based content (NPCs, main char, links between the characters and the plot as why they care for that quest among others).
Someone making it wouldn't hurt anyone, would it?
There are times in IWD where i think to myself: I wish i was really there in that cold town huddled around that lake. Id just rest in my small home next to the fire with coffee and be content riding out the winter.
Never had any moments like that in any BG game (not to say they are bad, i absolutely love them.)
There are no NPCs recruitable in the game, so putting additional ones with banter etc, might be good, but it makes the game closer to BG.
IWD used 2nd edition rules while IWD2 used 3rd edition. This might actually prove a hassle. What do they do? Use 2nd stuff for 1 and 3rd for 2? Or use the same thing for both? Whatever they decide to do, IWD2 will have a lot of work rule-wise.
In my humble opinion, the only way i see IWD getting enhanced is if the source art is available somewhere, and Beamdog makes a high definition version of it. That way, they do what they couldn't with BG, and they let modders mod both games even more, putting NPCs and more in IWD, and using the improved art of IWD:EE for BG enhanced.
So,in short : If the source art is available and you can make it HD with new animations/graphics and stuff, go for it. If it's not available and we're gonna see something like BG:EE, don't bother honestly.
My comment was directed at OP, not at you. Puts your replies in an interesting light.
The only thing IWD is missing over Baldur's gate is background chatter from NPCs.
You could turn Baldur's gate into a single character Hack and slash and it wouldn't make a single difference to the story. The same way adding NPC's to IWD would not add anything to the Icewind dale story over the 6 characters you can create yourself.
Hell compile your own WeiDU mod if you like. Rip apart the other IWD NPC mod and change the characters, bend them to your will, but don't go nay-saying IWD:EE to Beamdog when there are people who get more enjoyment from it. You don't have to like everything.
The NPCs in Baldur's Gate add nothing to the story, only idle chatter which is few and far between. There is no difference between the NPCs in BG and the NPCs in IWD other than the fact that the ones in BG were characterized very well. If you want the same characterization, pick the best soundsets in IWD (many to choose from there) and make some great friends.
Now, you're right to point out that anyone can play BG as a solo experience... but I rather think that if that's what you're looking for, your interests might be served better with Diablo or Torchlight, as they're designed specifically to favor gameplay over story. And so is IWD.
@Ward: If you're going to insist on portraying yourself as the only person who understands the "true value" of IWD while everyone else is tragically mistaken, be prepared to have that assertion challenged. Granted, you make it easy given how you contradict yourself with every other sentence - are BG's NPCs "poorly written" or "characterized very well"? Regardless, I have as much right to dispute your opinions as you do to state them.
By another side, when you play a game with some pre-generated NPCs, the game teases you, there's an outside issue provoking you to react. That's raise a lot the replay interest.
This is one of some points in IWD that take off the replay interest, and the most objective one, as the others are more subjective, so let's just forget the person behind those words here, and just evaluate what is said by the merit of the own words.
If you agree to the words exposed above, then you also agree that to fix this, based in replay interest, an Enhanced Edition should introduce proper NPCs. If this is done, i believe the community will be a step closer to reach an agreement about the proper course of a IWD Enhanced Edition.
I pretend ONE of the PCs is me, the rest are my friends. They shut up but have personalities. Good work BlackIsle. I don't act like I'm controlling 6 summoned goblin drones.
But your goblin drone metaphor is exactly how IWD works. I mean, good for you if you can make up distinct backgrounds and personalities for six characters, but it's not like the game acknowledges any differentiation between them. Consider that in a PnP D&D game - or multiplayer BG, for that matter - six PCs often means six players. They each have their own RP story to perform, and while you are all nominally playing through the same plot, they're not always going to follow the same script.
@kamuizin is correct to point out that IWD offers little replay value beyond the mechanical: the game doesn't care if I have an all-Paladin party or a half drow, half gnome group, the plot will always play out in the same linear, unidirectional fashion.
And as someone pointed out early in the discussion before it broke down into arguing, (the fellow who's name i forget and i'm too lazy to search for) who put the little vid of the kuldahar theme music, i agree. The musical score in iwd was just fantastic. So in conclusion, to answer the original question. I'd like to see an IWD1:EE as long as the team can negotiate a better contract to make more changes and additions to the original game and the original resources can be tracked down and used(If original bg resources couldn't be found doubtful Iwd can either).
As for the discussion over the old gold box edition D&D's, i loved them. They were the cat's meow in those days, but they do not hold a candle to the games like bg and iwd or pstm. I'd still love to go back and play them though for nostalgia's sake as i still have the Silver Archives edition i bought yrs ago that had every single silver and gold box D&D game ever made from pool of radiance to curse of the azure bonds to hillsfar and gateway to the savage frontier(with many more games in between). Only my lack of experience with a dos emulators and win7's game unfriendly issues are stopping me. Happy gaming
With this point raised, anyone that see the BG X IWD issue now will clearly note that the lack of NPCs in IWD isn't a difference it's lack of quality.
To resume: I can do everything in BG that i do in IWD, however IWD doesn't do everything that BG do. And to worse the situation, IWD was launched after BG, so it's a regression of quality.