'phordicus', on 30 Mar 2012 - 05:06, said:
Also, why do you think they should include ToBEx? I thought the point of them having the source code meant that they don't have to use dll injection.
I think it means they want to include the
contents of ToBEx, rather than the
method with which they are implemented. With the source code, they could make all the ToBEx stuff canon without resorting to "dll injection".
'Stabwound', on 30 Mar 2012 - 02:10, said:
recent screenshots look like BGT running on GemRB...
Worry not, for Trent Oster had already stated multiple times that those screenshot do not portray the final enhanced graphics of
BGEE. They have several graphical enhancements they want to implement and nothing to show yet. Oh, he also said to expect a major UI overhaul

'phordicus', on 30 Mar 2012 - 00:48, said:
Considering how "open" they seem, what with Twitter and trying to appeal to the purists, why is all this coming through back channels? Is there some reason T can't just come out and say, "We like several mods and if we don't specifically include or at least duplicate them, we'll make sure you can use them."
I believe Trent said something like that on his Twitter account, I'm just too lazy to dig it. He even said that if a mod exploits a bug that is fixed in
BGEE, they are willing to work with the modder to find a different implementation (not saying that mods usually rely on bugs to work, as they actually tend to fix them - just saying that their "openness" has indeed been used to state that mod compatibility is being willingly pursued).
'William Imm', on 30 Mar 2012 - 02:15, said:
* More Elaborate Quests (one of the key people says he wants to include UB and "Banter Packs mods for BG1" - presumably BG1NPC mod.
* Allow equing directly a two-handed weapon in the invetory while having a shield on..
* Ability info screen
* Improving pathfinding
* Have summoned creatures be able to leave the area (not sure about that one)
* Bugfixing plently
* Dynamic terrian/areas
* More unique items (like adding more exotic weapons to BG1)
* Fixing a bug with day/night tilesets
* Enhanced graphics
* New classes/kits
* Having Slayer form improve over time.
Oster said multiple times that UI and multiplayer are a priority, so I find it wierd to not see them on the list. Nevertheless, I would welcome all of the above, although I'm not quite sure what they mean with "dynamic terrain/areas". Non-static shadows would be a great graphical enhancement - though again, I can't consider the graphics to be "enhanced" if they keep using
BG2 paperdolls and animations, or if BAMs are still limited to 256 colors. The ability to zoom in would also be a great addition, though it would be even better if everything in game was made to scale and adapt to resolution being used (including backgrounds, animations and BAMs).
'William Imm', on 30 Mar 2012 - 02:15, said:
* Changing some NPCs location to be more convenient/be available early.
* Atmospheric effects
* BG1 NPC rebalancing
* KELSEY INCLUDED (may or may not be - I think he should be optional)
* A monk NPC for the game
These leave me perplexed. The game already features atmospheric effects (well, rain and snow at any rate) so either they plan on adding more (like fog, falling leaves in autumn, and so on...) or they just want to make them more frequent - which is fine and all but a pretty minor/trivial thing to waste one's time on.
Also not sure what they mean with "
NPC rebalancing". Of course several
BG1 NPCs will have to be modified to take
ToB features into account so maybe that is it.
They said there's going to be just one new
NPC. I guessed it would be a monk, and that's fine but either it's Kelsey or a brand new one; if they put both into the game that's two new NPCs of which one is not so new, but rather someone else's work. Making it canon wouldn't be a nice move. They should develop their own NPCs and let modders have their own, which players can freely install at their leisure.
I thank you once again for mentioning
BG1 paperdolls and animations, as that's one of my top priorities. It wouldn't be bad to have additional animations for existing monsters to add some variety, but
IA can take care of that if compatibility is retained (the point is moot as it depends on whether
BGEE graphics are made to actually scale with resolution; in which case,
IA may require a serious overhaul to comply - but I'm no modder, so I'm just speculating).