Not sure which mod you are refering to there, but to give you an example of a balancing mod, check out @Demivrgvs's Spell Revisions (http://www.gibberlings3.net/spell_rev/) - in essence it nerfs some of the more powerful spells, and improves many of the useless ones so that there's a reason for memorizing them.
This is exactly what I was saying. You nerf something and then improve something else when that improvement isn't needed. If you nerf something, then keep it at that. If the modding community feels that some spells need to be nerfed because of balancing issues, then stay at just nerfing those spells.
Don't improve other spells because 'it gives you a reason to memorise them'. It's not a balancing mod when you make other spells more powerful than they should be. They don't need to be more powerful.
Not sure which mod you are refering to there, but to give you an example of a balancing mod, check out @Demivrgvs's Spell Revisions (http://www.gibberlings3.net/spell_rev/) - in essence it nerfs some of the more powerful spells, and improves many of the useless ones so that there's a reason for memorizing them.
This is exactly what I was saying. You nerf something and then improve something else when that improvement isn't needed. If you nerf something, then keep it at that. If the modding community feels that some spells need to be nerfed because of balancing issues, then stay at just nerfing those spells.
Don't improve other spells because 'it gives you a reason to memorise them'. It's not a balancing mod when you make other spells more powerful than they should be. They don't need to be more powerful.
Wait, so only nerfing is allowed for balance reasons? It's impossible for anything ever to be underpowered?
Wait, so only nerfing is allowed for balance reasons? It's impossible for anything ever to be underpowered?
So improving a +3 or +4 sword because everyone else is using a +5 sword is balancing? Because we need more OP items to balance out the rest of the OP items. Because 'it will give you a reason to use that improved weapon now'.
Just to add something further. Say you nerf Magic Missile. Then the other level 1 spells are improved by that nerf. If you then improve say Chromatic Orb (because everyone is using MM), then not only has Chromatic Orb benefited from the MM nerf but it also benefits a second time with your improvement. That's 2 improvements. No need to make improvements to spells when you nerf something because it already benefits from the initial nerf. That's what I'm trying to convey.
Before I begin, it should be noted that while I myself carry a degree of disdain for most mods, it is of my personal preference, and I am not against the modding community as a whole. I am against the mandatory inclusion of mods in games at release. Mods have always seemed a means to add personal taste and flavour to a game, but I believe that the game you receive in it's base version should *ALWAYS* be the unmodified game that the developers released. Tamper with it as you will, but it should be done at the discretion of the individual and not of the many.
@Anduine The "closemindedness" here lies in the belief of only one side of the story. That a mod may in the eyes of some improve upon the original game isn't about being disrespectful toward the original developers.
As for what is or isn't intended, my view is that it tends to be a shifty line. Looking at ascension for instance. If David Gaider had made it as lead designer you would by your own code accept it at at least somewhat official content, I'd assume. If Gaider instead hypothetically got fired two days before completing ascension, would you then view it as unofficial material and refuse to use it based on that, in spite of it being the exact same content?
Hypothetical A: Correct. If Ascension had been designed by the original development team, and was released as an official update/patch, I would have read more into it, and I'd likely be using it today, unless it seemed to tamper with the game to an unacceptable level. Official or not, there is only so much change I am willing to accept before I say "Enough."
Example of unacceptable level: Official patch changing Baldur's Gate to D&D Edition 3.0.
Example of acceptable level: Certain NPCs are more difficult to fight. Alteration in stats of certain items.
Hypothetical B: Correct again, granting that 2 days removed from the development team is not very much. Like my answer above, I would at least read more into it, but in this case, I would be more likely to not accept Ascension as official, and thus would have no interest in it.
The point of many of the best mods is precisely to bring the game closer to how it was intended to be played. When an item's description says it does X effect, and it doesn't, and you realize it's because there's a typo in its script, somehow it seems wrong to assume that this inconsistency and this typo are really what the developers intended.
That may be the point of many of the best mods, but the fact is that the individuals behind the mods are not necessarily (And in my opinion, are simply not) qualified to say how a game was intended to be played without the direct and official support of the original development team. I agree with your example, but that is just one point of a mod in a sea of thousands, and one point alone is not enough to change my preferences.
@Miloch: I have been made repeatedly aware of that, as I already acknowledged. My issue is that David Gaider was not on the team during the time in which he released the Ascension mod, and thus Ascension is called a mod instead of a patch or update.
Are you guys just intentionally ignoring the name of Ascension's author for the sake of making a broader point?
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
If the lead designer for the game isn't qualified to say what the lead designer intended, who is?
That's like saying that if Shakespeare stopped working with his company, he would no longer know what he meant by Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech and would therefore be unqualified to change it.
I will grant you that adding mods to a game just for the sake of doing so is generally not a good idea, and mods created by fans should hardly be viewed as professional (because they're not professionals). But when it comes to Ascension, what we're essentially talking about is a Director's Cut for a movie that is in desperate need of one.
Are you guys just intentionally ignoring the name of Ascension's author for the sake of making a broader point?
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
In part, yes, I am intentionally ignoring the name because I am making a broader point in that I do not play modded games, Baldur's Gate being included on that list.
The information you posted about Gaider's statement seems inconclusive. "Would have likely"? If they had more time, it could have changed how they made the game. The development team may have taken a slower, more methodical approach to the game and the correction of errors if they had the time. If they had more time, maybe David Gaider could have had more feedback from his team and from the gaming community, thus changing the content of Ascension.
The problem with what I have typed is the use of the word "if", and I could go on for several hours. Of course I respect David Gaider's qualifications, and the unseen proof of that is me taking the time to read the notes THOROUGHLY, instead of a simple dismissal that I give 99% of mods. The fact is that the content was not released officially, and while I respect the rights of others to use what mods they see fit, I have already cast my vote, and I stand by that I do not ever want to see a game with mandatory mods.
EDIT: Am I really the only one realizing that if the mod is not included in the game, it does not halt modders from doing it themselves? The only difference is that if the mod is included in the game, it likely cannot be removed. It just seems like a win/win to let purists be pure and let modders mod. Everyone is happy, unless modders want to force purists to mod? I hope that's not the case, as I am disgusted by it.
Are you guys just intentionally ignoring the name of Ascension's author for the sake of making a broader point?
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
In part, yes, I am intentionally ignoring the name because I am making a broader point in that I do not play modded games, Baldur's Gate being included on that list.
The information you posted about Gaider's statement seems inconclusive. "Would have likely"? If they had more time, it could have changed how they made the game. The development team may have taken a slower, more methodical approach to the game and the correction of errors if they had the time. If they had more time, maybe David Gaider could have had more feedback from his team and from the gaming community, thus changing the content of Ascension.
The problem with what I have typed is the use of the word "if", and I could go on for several hours. Of course I respect David Gaider's qualifications, and the unseen proof of that is me taking the time to read the notes THOROUGHLY, instead of a simple dismissal that I give 99% of mods. The fact is that the content was not released officially, and while I respect the rights of others to use what mods they see fit, I have already cast my vote, and I stand by that I do not ever want to see a game with mandatory mods.
EE is essentially one big mandatory mod, unless Overhaul changed its name to Black Isle. What about all the mod bugfixes that will be included in EE? What about 1PP? The idea that you would accept changes to the game made by people who never worked on it over those made by the lead designer, simply because the former are employees of a corporation, is odd to say the least.
This isn't intended as a slight against Overhaul or anything, but I just find it odd that you seem to see their code as Holy Writ.
@Communard for the record, both Trent and Cam were on the original development team. So they do know what they're doing (which is a good thing, considering what they had to work with #Windows95).
For myself, I don't necessarily want the mod to be implemented wholesale; I'd like for them to look at the content, use (and edit as needed) the dialogue involved, and find a way to incorporate the rest of it so that it feels like a seamless implementation rather than a tacked on mod.
There are few people who would dispute that the difficulty of Ascension's "improved battles" creates some problems, especially with new players; so that element would need to be looked at. And there are other elements as well, such as the additional bhaalspawn powers. I wouldn't propose that it just be thrown in as-is, but I think that this is a rare opportunity to realize the original vision of the game and make Throne of Bhaal a proper expansion to BG2, rather than the half-adventure (and, dare I say, half-assed conclusion) that it currently is.
In fact, my ideal would be that they bring David Gaider in to help work on the content with @Dave, so that it becomes truly "official" content rather than something that doesn't have the developer's seal of approval.
Are you guys just intentionally ignoring the name of Ascension's author for the sake of making a broader point?
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
In part, yes, I am intentionally ignoring the name because I am making a broader point in that I do not play modded games, Baldur's Gate being included on that list.
The information you posted about Gaider's statement seems inconclusive. "Would have likely"? If they had more time, it could have changed how they made the game. The development team may have taken a slower, more methodical approach to the game and the correction of errors if they had the time. If they had more time, maybe David Gaider could have had more feedback from his team and from the gaming community, thus changing the content of Ascension.
The problem with what I have typed is the use of the word "if", and I could go on for several hours. Of course I respect David Gaider's qualifications, and the unseen proof of that is me taking the time to read the notes THOROUGHLY, instead of a simple dismissal that I give 99% of mods. The fact is that the content was not released officially, and while I respect the rights of others to use what mods they see fit, I have already cast my vote, and I stand by that I do not ever want to see a game with mandatory mods.
EE is essentially one big mandatory mod, unless Overhaul changed its name to Black Isle. What about all the mod bugfixes that will be included in EE? What about 1PP? The idea that you would accept changes to the game made by people who never worked on it over those made by the lead designer, simply because the former are employees of a corporation, is odd to say the least.
This isn't intended as a slight against Overhaul or anything, but I just find it odd that you seem to see their code as Holy Writ.
I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that Overhaul's promise to leave the original game untouched was a lie. Consider my acceptance of this game the price I am willing to pay to see my friends play and enjoy the game. I very well may spend more time in the non-EE versions, but I will at the least support people I know who never or couldn't/wouldn't get into the originals.
@Anduine Because of the lead designer making Ascension directly with dedicated fans, most of the better mods like TuTu, etc came into existence. Ascension is essentially the spark behind what led us to BG EE being made. Also if you're against mods in general and have never even used this particular mod in a TOB game, who are you to dispute it's merits? It makes TOB a MUCH more rich and satisfying experience, and it seriously is one of the best mods ever made. The difficulty of improved battles aside (*which I like because I feel it makes high level battles a challenge for a change), the story enhancements give things a lot more closure in a much more fun context. The extended epilogues are great. The feeling you get from having the whole gaming experience end with a bang instead of a whimper really adds a lot to the conclusion. Have you ever even used this Mod? Or are you just acting as if it's something half-assed?
@Anduine Because of the lead designer making Ascension directly with dedicated fans, most of the better mods like TuTu, etc came into existence. Ascension is essentially the spark behind what led us to BG EE being made. Also if you're against mods in general and have never even used this particular mod in a TOB game, who are you to dispute it's merits? It make TOB a MUCH more rich and satisfying experience, and it seriously is one of the best mods ever made. The difficulty of improved battles aside (*which I like because I feel it makes high level battles a challenge for a change), the story enhancements give things a lot more closure in a much more fun context. The extended epilogues are great. The feeling you get from having the whole gaming experience end with a bang instead of a whimper really adds a lot to the conclusion. Have you ever even used this Mod? Or are you just acting as if it's something half-assed?
No, I have not used this mod. Again, I ignore most mods and care nothing for them. It's the qualifications behind the Ascension mod that let me take time and read both the full mod notes and some commentaries as to why the mod was created in the first place. Who am I to dispute it's merits? Seeing as I am only disputing it's merits in the terms of it's presence on *MY* computer and no one else's, I'd say that I am the only voice I need. I did not tell you or anyone else not to use this mod, or that you were wrong for doing so. I am saying that if you would like to add the Ascension mod to the game, by all means do so, but do not force people to mod their games. Or are you not fond of "vanilla"/"base" games and would rather force all customers to play a game bombarded by mods?
EDIT: I guess I liked the word "mod" in this post.
@Debaser I don't think Anduine is against the concept of mods in general; he just doesn't want to have to use specific mods in his game. Which is a valid point, although I maintain that the content in Ascension, being content that was intended to be in the game to begin with but left out because of time constraints, is an excellent opportunity to fix the expansion's shortcomings.
EDIT: @Anduine, I'm going to call you "Maude" from now on, but purely for the irony of it.
Just to add something further. Say you nerf Magic Missile. Then the other level 1 spells are improved by that nerf.
This is a relatively common hotfix philosophy, but it isn't true. By nerfing the best option you aren't improving the other options - what you are doing is pushing players toward the second best option instead, if it can be clearly identified - but that isn't a solution to the issue. If you nerf magic missile, will that suddenly make infravision a better spell?
If you then improve say Chromatic Orb (because everyone is using MM), then not only has Chromatic Orb benefited from the MM nerf but it also benefits a second time with your improvement. That's 2 improvements. No need to make improvements to spells when you nerf something because it already benefits from the initial nerf. That's what I'm trying to convey.
Again, a benefit isn't the same as a lack of options. If you remove all level 1 spells except for chill touch, that doesn't suddenly make chill touch awesome. As stated, the idea is to give every spell a reasonable use. You can't go too far with that idea and make them all exactly as good as each other as that would deviate a lot from D&D rules, but you can address spells that are so good that a player will commonly use them continuously after receiving them; and you can address spells that are so bad that a player commonly won't use them at all, and try to even out the difference.
Keep in mind, the point of this particular mod isn't to nerf arcane casters (which would be the result if all it did was nerf the best spells), but to tweak and balance their repertoire and playstyle. And as @Communard hinted, balancing involves improving what's poor as much as nerfing what's overpowered.
Hypothetical A: Correct. If Ascension had been designed by the original development team, and was released as an official update/patch, I would have read more into it, and I'd likely be using it today, unless it seemed to tamper with the game to an unacceptable level. Official or not, there is only so much change I am willing to accept before I say "Enough."
Example of unacceptable level: Official patch changing Baldur's Gate to D&D Edition 3.0.
Example of acceptable level: Certain NPCs are more difficult to fight. Alteration in stats of certain items.
Hypothetical B: Correct again, granting that 2 days removed from the development team is not very much. Like my answer above, I would at least read more into it, but in this case, I would be more likely to not accept Ascension as official, and thus would have no interest in it.
Well, I respect your opinion and your right to play the game as you choose, but your philosophy in this case still comes off as close-minded and doesn't make much sense to me. Do you apply it to several aspects of life, always going with the "official/authorized" option and never pondering how you might like the alternative? Or is it that just knowing that your choice is the official one gives you a sense of satisfaction so profound that you don't believe any difference in quality could compare to it?
@Anduine and @Aosaw, I'm not saying Anduine is against other people playing with mods, I'm saying he's never used THIS mod in question. There's a reason why people wish the majority of the elements of Ascension were cannon to the game. TOB largely is the weakest link to Baldurs Gate as a storyline. Someone who worked on the game, the lead designer of the entire expansion in fact, created it for a reason. He thought the story needed the extra content. I like the harder battles but even without them, the extra story content is in fact GREAT. If Anduine has never experienced it, who is he to say that it isn't something that would contribute to a better gaming experience on a whole? Just because he would prefer for things to stay the same-about doesn't mean that he wouldn't enjoy this particular module if he tried it, thus gaining perspective. Ascension as you and I know Aosaw, wasn't just some arbitrary deal. It was a real labor for the fans of this game to make the end a better experience. And to make the endgame battles less of a simple breeze.
I'll start by saying I've never played this MOD, and I'm just judging by what I read here. Also, I don't see the need of being "purists". It all depends on the content. This is an ENHANCED Edition, after all...
New Slayer forms sounds awesome, and they're much certainly needed. Let's face it, the one Slayer form is quite a letdown. New dialogue is always welcome and it can't hurt. Quality translations are obviously a good thing.
Re-worked epilogues are obviously NOT possible. A big violation of the "let's not distort the game" clause.
As per the battles, it depends how it's done, and how deep the change is.
I am saying that if you would like to add the Ascension mod to the game, by all means do so, but do not force people to mod their games. Or are you not fond of "vanilla"/"base" games and would rather force all customers to play a game bombarded by mods?
The point of adding Ascension to the core game would precisely be to stop forcing people to mod their game in order to get what is almost official DLC by today's standards. Also it would allow people like you, who are allergic to altering their installations, but also those simply without the know-how or the physical means (not sure what the modding story will be on mobile) to enjoy this content knowing it was officially sanctionned by the original Baldur's Gate developers themselves.
In order words, we're not forcing anyone to install mods, we're suggesting changes to the vanilla experience so as to reduce the dependence on mods. This is the entire point of the Enhanced Editions in the first place.
I simply don't understand why content from Ascension would be any less valuable than new content developed by Overhaul.
I think they need a link of mods somewhere on the forums because I feel it would benefit those who want to play the "raw" version without any major changes from mods while having mods that people wish to download just a simple click away in a forum post. That way everyone wins.
Well, I respect your opinion and your right to play the game as you choose, but your philosophy in this case still comes off as close-minded and doesn't make much sense to me. Do you apply it to several aspects of life, always going with the "official/authorized" option and never pondering how you might like the alternative? Or is it that just knowing that your choice is the official one gives you a sense of satisfaction so profound that you don't believe any difference in quality could compare to it?
This thread and this forum relates to Baldur's Gate, so I have no intention of turning this into a debate of real-life philosophy. I do not recall stating that I've never given thought to any mod at any time. If I recall, I've mentioned more than once in this thread that I took my time looking into Ascension, and also implied that I am the only of my friends that does not play with mods, which in fact, would impart knowledge of mods such as Ascension, Tutu, etc to me. Not seeking out mods myself does not mean that I close my eyes and stab myself in the ears in an attempt to prevent myself from learning about them.
I've seen and heard enough to know that I am quite happy to play the game in the original form, because that's simply how much I enjoy it. I enjoy playing the game in it's base form, and as odd as it sounds, I enjoy persevering through any errors or bugs in the game, because that's simply how much of a purist I am in this game and it shows how much I love it. While your last question seems to carry some disdain as well as implying that I am more arrogant than I am, the answer to that is "Yes." I am so satisfied with my love of the game in it's base form that I see no need to modify it further. I enjoy reading the same stories over and over. I enjoy playing the same games over and over. There are of course exception to both of those rules of mine, but that's all.
If I am "close-minded" when it comes to my love of this game, it is only because in my narrow vision I see perfection and thus have no desire to broaden it, because there can be no improvement of perfection.
@Debaser I don't think Anduine is against the concept of mods in general; he just doesn't want to have to use specific mods in his game. Which is a valid point, although I maintain that the content in Ascension, being content that was intended to be in the game to begin with but left out because of time constraints, is an excellent opportunity to fix the expansion's shortcomings.
EDIT: @Anduine, I'm going to call you "Maude" from now on, but purely for the irony of it.
1. Thank you for the support/defense/clarification. 2. "Maude"? Could you elaborate?
@AdventSign Did you see that this mod in particular was developed by the lead developer on Throne of Bhaal who thought (rightly) that the end content wasn't as elaborate and satisfying an experience as the rest of the installments of the game? Also @Zeckul I 100% agree. In a modern gaming context everything about Ascension would qualify as Downloadable Content (DLC), just like Fallout 3 and a myriad of other newer gen RPGs have as a part of their business models. This is not a mod that was made by people who who weren't involved with the game being developed, and it should be looked as additional content that can finally be in the official version. (ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WAS SOME OF THE BEST FUN IN THE ENTIRE GAME!) @Raistlin82 I don't think they would have trouble with the legal end of things since the epilogues are extended for the most part (not much changes, you just get more backstory on where everyone goes after the events of the game)
I mean it's not like they're changing core elements of characters, it just feels more definitive, like an actual ending.
@Anduine I still say you're missing out if you've never used this mod for TOB. I almost lose interest with TOB without it. (It's exceedingly well done and makes the final chapter feel more like a challenge with some great story rather than a bookend. I think you would enjoy it immensely. Also, I think if you haven't actually ever used this mod, and since it's from the lead developer himself, wouldn't you be curious as to what he couldn't do with the time and budget constraints against a xmas shipping date? Wouldn't you want more from the same guy whose work you respect, to get the "Directors Cut" so to speak??
If I am "close-minded" when it comes to my love of this game, it is only because in my narrow vision I see perfection and thus have no desire to broaden it, because there can be no improvement of perfection.
The very possibility of making an Enhanced Edition relies on the premise that Baldur's Gate 2 is not perfect and therefore can be "enhanced". The addition of the content found in the Ascension mod would be an example of such enhancement. The question is not whether BG2 can be improved upon or not, but whether Ascension should be part of the improvements found in BG2:EE or not.
@Anduine I still say you're missing out if you've never used this mod for TOB. I almost lose interest with TOB without it. (It's exceedingly well done and makes the final chapter feel more like a challenge with some great story rather than a bookend. I think you would enjoy it immensely. Also, I think if you haven't actually ever used this mod, and since it's from the lead developer himself, wouldn't you be curious as to what he couldn't do with the time and budget constraints against a xmas shipping date? Wouldn't you want more from the same guy whose work you respect, to get the "Directors Cut" so to speak??
Yes, I would be curious, which is why I read all of the notes and got feedback from people who played prior to completely deciding I do not want to play. As I have mentioned in the past and recently, I have played this game almost the same way many times, and I still enjoy it thoroughly.
The very possibility of making an Enhanced Edition relies on the premise that Baldur's Gate 2 is not perfect and therefore can be "enhanced". The addition of the content found in the Ascension mod would be an example of such enhancement. The question is not whether BG2 can be improved upon or not, but whether Ascension should be part of the improvements found in BG2:EE or not.
My "dispute" here is not whether or not BG:EE should be released, but rather if Ascension should be a mandatory part of the game, in which I said no. If my dispute where about the Enhanced Edition, I would not have preordered 7 copies. Most of the enhancements are not tampering with the game itself, and even then I'd like to keep that to a minimum. For instance, I will not be using any of the 3 new characters, and may very likely ignore the Black Pit. I may very well go back to the non-EE versions, but it seems like I will be able to play the EE versions like the original with higher resolutions if and likely will decide to ignore the added content.
As previously mentioned, consider this the "price" I am willing to pay in order to introduce this game to my friends in hopes of getting them into it.
@Anduine and @Aosaw, I'm not saying Anduine is against other people playing with mods, I'm saying he's never used THIS mod in question. There's a reason why people wish the majority of the elements of Ascension were cannon to the game. TOB largely is the weakest link to Baldurs Gate as a storyline. Someone who worked on the game, the lead designer of the entire expansion in fact, created it for a reason. He thought the story needed the extra content. I like the harder battles but even without them, the extra story content is in fact GREAT. If Anduine has never experienced it, who is he to say that it isn't something that would contribute to a better gaming experience on a whole? Just because he would prefer for things to stay the same-about doesn't mean that he wouldn't enjoy this particular module if he tried it, thus gaining perspective. Ascension as you and I know Aosaw, wasn't just some arbitrary deal. It was a real labor for the fans of this game to make the end a better experience. And to make the endgame battles less of a simple breeze.
Debaser, just because I do not have first-hand experience does not mean that I lack extensive third-hand experience. While I do lack that when it comes to "run of the mill" mods, it really does not make any difference. Where is the harm if Overhaul adds Ascension as a downloadable mod on their website? Maybe downloading the game includes a separate folder for the Ascension installer, granting you optional access to it upon release? My dispute in this thread is for one note and one note ONLY: I do not want Ascension to be a mandatory part of the game. I accept that there will be some modifications to the game, thus adding to the "Enhanced" title, but I'd like to keep that to a minimum, and I don't see why you win by forcing me to play with even more mods despite not wanting to.
My not wanting to play a mod does not in any way, shape, or form impede anyone in the world from doing it themselves. Explain to me why my perspective is harmful to others or wrong, because despite looking at it over and over, I just don't see it.
@Anduine also, the notes are one thing, actually trying the mod is another. You might find a description helpful, but how would you know if you liked it if you never actually played with it implemented?
@Anduine also, the notes are one thing, actually trying the mod is another. You might find a description helpful, but how would you know if you liked it if you never actually played with it implemented?
If I do not like the description via notes and feedback, why would it be a safe assumption on my end to assume that everything I've heard is wrong that I will actually enjoy the game?
I would love to have both ToB's. The original one, and the Asc. I would be doing two installs also one normal and one modded.
So please do not include this with the ship, unless it's a checkbox option to add it and it's components, in a mods section, under the initial ingame option-screen.
My "dispute" here is not whether or not BG:EE should be released, but rather if Ascension should be a mandatory part of the game, in which I said no. If my dispute where about the Enhanced Edition, I would not have preordered 7 copies. Most of the enhancements are not tampering with the game itself, and even then I'd like to keep that to a minimum. For instance, I will not be using any of the 3 new characters, and may very likely ignore the Black Pit. I may very well go back to the non-EE versions, but it seems like I will be able to play the EE versions like the original with higher resolutions if and likely will decide to ignore the added content.
The large majority of enhancements in BG:EE is the type of enhancements that you currently get with mods: running in the ToB engine, higher resolutions, new NPCs, graphical tweaks, etc. Hell, a lot of the new stuff in there is directly from mods; many fixes are provided by modders themselves. If you are uninterested in these types of improvements then you clearly don't care about there being an Enhanced Edition at all, and there's little point voicing your opinion as to what it should contain.
Comments
Don't improve other spells because 'it gives you a reason to memorise them'. It's not a balancing mod when you make other spells more powerful than they should be. They don't need to be more powerful.
Just to add something further. Say you nerf Magic Missile. Then the other level 1 spells are improved by that nerf. If you then improve say Chromatic Orb (because everyone is using MM), then not only has Chromatic Orb benefited from the MM nerf but it also benefits a second time with your improvement. That's 2 improvements. No need to make improvements to spells when you nerf something because it already benefits from the initial nerf. That's what I'm trying to convey.
Hypothetical A: Correct. If Ascension had been designed by the original development team, and was released as an official update/patch, I would have read more into it, and I'd likely be using it today, unless it seemed to tamper with the game to an unacceptable level. Official or not, there is only so much change I am willing to accept before I say "Enough."
Example of unacceptable level: Official patch changing Baldur's Gate to D&D Edition 3.0.
Example of acceptable level: Certain NPCs are more difficult to fight. Alteration in stats of certain items.
Hypothetical B: Correct again, granting that 2 days removed from the development team is not very much. Like my answer above, I would at least read more into it, but in this case, I would be more likely to not accept Ascension as official, and thus would have no interest in it.
That may be the point of many of the best mods, but the fact is that the individuals behind the mods are not necessarily (And in my opinion, are simply not) qualified to say how a game was intended to be played without the direct and official support of the original development team. I agree with your example, but that is just one point of a mod in a sea of thousands, and one point alone is not enough to change my preferences.
@Miloch:
I have been made repeatedly aware of that, as I already acknowledged. My issue is that David Gaider was not on the team during the time in which he released the Ascension mod, and thus Ascension is called a mod instead of a patch or update.
David Gaider was the lead designer for Baldur's Gate. He stated specifically in the mod's notes that this was the ending that Throne of Bhaal would have likely had if they had had more time but didn't because of production timelines.
If the lead designer for the game isn't qualified to say what the lead designer intended, who is?
That's like saying that if Shakespeare stopped working with his company, he would no longer know what he meant by Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech and would therefore be unqualified to change it.
I will grant you that adding mods to a game just for the sake of doing so is generally not a good idea, and mods created by fans should hardly be viewed as professional (because they're not professionals). But when it comes to Ascension, what we're essentially talking about is a Director's Cut for a movie that is in desperate need of one.
The information you posted about Gaider's statement seems inconclusive. "Would have likely"? If they had more time, it could have changed how they made the game. The development team may have taken a slower, more methodical approach to the game and the correction of errors if they had the time. If they had more time, maybe David Gaider could have had more feedback from his team and from the gaming community, thus changing the content of Ascension.
The problem with what I have typed is the use of the word "if", and I could go on for several hours. Of course I respect David Gaider's qualifications, and the unseen proof of that is me taking the time to read the notes THOROUGHLY, instead of a simple dismissal that I give 99% of mods. The fact is that the content was not released officially, and while I respect the rights of others to use what mods they see fit, I have already cast my vote, and I stand by that I do not ever want to see a game with mandatory mods.
EDIT: Am I really the only one realizing that if the mod is not included in the game, it does not halt modders from doing it themselves? The only difference is that if the mod is included in the game, it likely cannot be removed. It just seems like a win/win to let purists be pure and let modders mod. Everyone is happy, unless modders want to force purists to mod? I hope that's not the case, as I am disgusted by it.
This isn't intended as a slight against Overhaul or anything, but I just find it odd that you seem to see their code as Holy Writ.
For myself, I don't necessarily want the mod to be implemented wholesale; I'd like for them to look at the content, use (and edit as needed) the dialogue involved, and find a way to incorporate the rest of it so that it feels like a seamless implementation rather than a tacked on mod.
There are few people who would dispute that the difficulty of Ascension's "improved battles" creates some problems, especially with new players; so that element would need to be looked at. And there are other elements as well, such as the additional bhaalspawn powers. I wouldn't propose that it just be thrown in as-is, but I think that this is a rare opportunity to realize the original vision of the game and make Throne of Bhaal a proper expansion to BG2, rather than the half-adventure (and, dare I say, half-assed conclusion) that it currently is.
In fact, my ideal would be that they bring David Gaider in to help work on the content with @Dave, so that it becomes truly "official" content rather than something that doesn't have the developer's seal of approval.
I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that Overhaul's promise to leave the original game untouched was a lie. Consider my acceptance of this game the price I am willing to pay to see my friends play and enjoy the game. I very well may spend more time in the non-EE versions, but I will at the least support people I know who never or couldn't/wouldn't get into the originals.
No, I have not used this mod. Again, I ignore most mods and care nothing for them. It's the qualifications behind the Ascension mod that let me take time and read both the full mod notes and some commentaries as to why the mod was created in the first place. Who am I to dispute it's merits? Seeing as I am only disputing it's merits in the terms of it's presence on *MY* computer and no one else's, I'd say that I am the only voice I need. I did not tell you or anyone else not to use this mod, or that you were wrong for doing so. I am saying that if you would like to add the Ascension mod to the game, by all means do so, but do not force people to mod their games. Or are you not fond of "vanilla"/"base" games and would rather force all customers to play a game bombarded by mods?
EDIT: I guess I liked the word "mod" in this post.
EDIT: @Anduine, I'm going to call you "Maude" from now on, but purely for the irony of it.
As stated, the idea is to give every spell a reasonable use. You can't go too far with that idea and make them all exactly as good as each other as that would deviate a lot from D&D rules, but you can address spells that are so good that a player will commonly use them continuously after receiving them; and you can address spells that are so bad that a player commonly won't use them at all, and try to even out the difference.
Keep in mind, the point of this particular mod isn't to nerf arcane casters (which would be the result if all it did was nerf the best spells), but to tweak and balance their repertoire and playstyle. And as @Communard hinted, balancing involves improving what's poor as much as nerfing what's overpowered.
Also, I don't see the need of being "purists". It all depends on the content.
This is an ENHANCED Edition, after all...
New Slayer forms sounds awesome, and they're much certainly needed. Let's face it, the one Slayer form is quite a letdown.
New dialogue is always welcome and it can't hurt.
Quality translations are obviously a good thing.
Re-worked epilogues are obviously NOT possible. A big violation of the "let's not distort the game" clause.
As per the battles, it depends how it's done, and how deep the change is.
In order words, we're not forcing anyone to install mods, we're suggesting changes to the vanilla experience so as to reduce the dependence on mods. This is the entire point of the Enhanced Editions in the first place.
I simply don't understand why content from Ascension would be any less valuable than new content developed by Overhaul.
I've seen and heard enough to know that I am quite happy to play the game in the original form, because that's simply how much I enjoy it. I enjoy playing the game in it's base form, and as odd as it sounds, I enjoy persevering through any errors or bugs in the game, because that's simply how much of a purist I am in this game and it shows how much I love it. While your last question seems to carry some disdain as well as implying that I am more arrogant than I am, the answer to that is "Yes." I am so satisfied with my love of the game in it's base form that I see no need to modify it further. I enjoy reading the same stories over and over. I enjoy playing the same games over and over. There are of course exception to both of those rules of mine, but that's all.
If I am "close-minded" when it comes to my love of this game, it is only because in my narrow vision I see perfection and thus have no desire to broaden it, because there can be no improvement of perfection.
1. Thank you for the support/defense/clarification.
2. "Maude"? Could you elaborate?
I mean it's not like they're changing core elements of characters, it just feels more definitive, like an actual ending.
Yes, I would be curious, which is why I read all of the notes and got feedback from people who played prior to completely deciding I do not want to play. As I have mentioned in the past and recently, I have played this game almost the same way many times, and I still enjoy it thoroughly.
My "dispute" here is not whether or not BG:EE should be released, but rather if Ascension should be a mandatory part of the game, in which I said no. If my dispute where about the Enhanced Edition, I would not have preordered 7 copies. Most of the enhancements are not tampering with the game itself, and even then I'd like to keep that to a minimum. For instance, I will not be using any of the 3 new characters, and may very likely ignore the Black Pit. I may very well go back to the non-EE versions, but it seems like I will be able to play the EE versions like the original with higher resolutions if and likely will decide to ignore the added content.
As previously mentioned, consider this the "price" I am willing to pay in order to introduce this game to my friends in hopes of getting them into it.
Debaser, just because I do not have first-hand experience does not mean that I lack extensive third-hand experience. While I do lack that when it comes to "run of the mill" mods, it really does not make any difference. Where is the harm if Overhaul adds Ascension as a downloadable mod on their website? Maybe downloading the game includes a separate folder for the Ascension installer, granting you optional access to it upon release? My dispute in this thread is for one note and one note ONLY: I do not want Ascension to be a mandatory part of the game. I accept that there will be some modifications to the game, thus adding to the "Enhanced" title, but I'd like to keep that to a minimum, and I don't see why you win by forcing me to play with even more mods despite not wanting to.
My not wanting to play a mod does not in any way, shape, or form impede anyone in the world from doing it themselves. Explain to me why my perspective is harmful to others or wrong, because despite looking at it over and over, I just don't see it.
If I do not like the description via notes and feedback, why would it be a safe assumption on my end to assume that everything I've heard is wrong that I will actually enjoy the game?
So please do not include this with the ship, unless it's a checkbox option to add it and it's components, in a mods section, under the initial ingame option-screen.