1123 replies to this topic

[Kwiat_W]

I'm little disappointed. I hoped they would do more improvements to the interface, make it more user-friendly.
I hate playing inventory tetris, so I would kill for inventory that resembles the one from DragonAge - all items from all your characters on one screen, with names displayed next to icons, maybe even ability to sort the list by name, type, value.
I hoped for possibility of having more than 3 favorite spells displayed in the main gameplay window, but it seems they didn't make any changes there. They didn't even remove (or replace with something useful) the useless "talk to" and "guard" buttons.
Even the freakishly small "number.bam" font is still freakishly small.

[GeN1e]

the useless "talk to"

Actually, not. It is the only way to talk to your party members, and depending on a mod they may have something to say. Player-initiated dialogs or PIDs, as they're called around here.

[Kwiat_W]

the useless "talk to"

Actually, not. It is the only way to talk to your party members, and depending on a mod they may have something to say. Player-initiated dialogs or PIDs, as they're called around here.

How could I forget.

[Grunker]

Even then, this project is leeching off of the hard work modders have done throughout more than 10 years.

Even so, I can't see anybody concerned to be bothered by the fact.

They could have taken this chance to actually make some changes - for better or for worse, do something with the game. Update the rules to Pathfinder, anything. Instead, they made less effective version of GemRB's project goal, stuck a quest and 3 NPCs to it, and made sure we couldn't use our mods.

And make it truly incompatible with the existing mods then? That's hardly a noble idea to handle the community's legacy.

Wait - you're saying it's not okay to implement some new ideas (because of incompatability with mods), but it is okay to make a version with three NPCs and a quest (that's also incompatible with mods). That makes no sense. My point is that either way, BG:EE invalidates the use of most mods. If you're going to do that, you might as well actually do something new with the game, since otherwise you'll just end up with an inferior version of Baldur's Gate. Which is what BG:EE is. It is essentially an arguably worse GUI with three NPC quests and a quest mod that makes BG incompatible with all the mods you used to use. Nobody would install that if it was mods. Yet here Oster is, asking 20$ for it, and suddenly it's a great thing for the BG-scene?

Edited by Grunker, 24 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Dakk]

*I hoped for possibility of having more than 3 favorite spells displayed in the main gameplay window, but it seems they didn't make any changes there.
*They didn't even remove (or replace with something useful) the useless "talk to" and "guard" buttons.
*Even the freakishly small "number.bam" font is still freakishly small.

I agree all of this could, no should, have been changed / improved... Especially the first point.

Edited by Dakk, 24 November 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[GeN1e]

Wait - you're saying it's not okay to implement some new ideas (because of incompatability with mods), but it is okay to make a version with three NPCs and a quest (that's also incompatible with mods). That makes no sense. My point is that either way, BG:EE invalidates the use of most mods.

Updating a mod to BGEE is similar to updating a BG1 mod to BGT. Introducing Pathfinder rule system etc runs much deeper than that.
I assure you, handling the presence of 3 new NPCs is far simplier than having to re-make (worst case scenario - from the scratch) all items or creatures, because the file format has been changed to make room for new features.

Which is what BG:EE is. It is essentially an arguably worse GUI with three NPC quests and a quest mod that makes BG incompatible with all the mods you used to use.

BG2Tweaks and SCS have already been announced to being actively updated to BGEE. Most popular mods will follow, either way. Will it really be an issue if some god-forsaken little bugged mod, its author long gone, won't install on EE?
I may be called an elitist here, but imo it is a good way to separate quality-made mods from poor mods. I had my own share of people who installed a horrible mix of everything they could have found and then complained how awful their experience has been. Can be really discouraging sometimes.

Edited by GeN1e, 24 November 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[ScuD]

I'm with you GeN1e.
And I also don't understand why the updated and fixed version of the engine is bad in someone's opinion.

[theacefes]

I'm with you GeN1e.
And I also don't understand why the updated and fixed version of the engine is bad in someone's opinion.

If you read the past bajillion pages, you'll see that people's issues with the EE are a bit more complicated (some are even valid!) than "updat3d 3ng1n BAD! ME SMASH!".

[Aranthys]

It's fun because the main problems people have with BGEE is the following :
The UI sucks : will probably be modable
The mods will no longer work ! - will be marde to work ith BGEE over time.
They didn't provide enough new content ! For 20 bucks all I get is 3 NPCs, a lousy new arena mode and my mods won't work, why pay to lose content ? : what you guys should realise is that in the long run, what was done is huge in terms of possibilities.
BGEE will probably renew the mod community, and bring some new people. It provides a lot of fixes that will let modders explore new possibilities. It makes fan-made fixes and tweaks obsolete. There's also other new features (multiplayer, support of iPad / androit tablets), translations beeing fixed, and that's probably far from the complete list of features.

So yeah, in the short run, you'll "lose" some mods. And the UI may not suit your taste.
In the long run, everyone will win : players, modders, community. Paying 20 bucks to the guys that worked their asses off to manage to do that, yeah, I will.
BGEE will probably become the standard version to be used for mods, as modders embrace the new possibilities provided by the engine.

And finally, it's not like 20 bucks is a huge amount of money. If there's a dev (with amazing credentials, mind you) working with a team on improving and renewing my beloved favorite game, hell yeah they'll get my support.

Edited by Aranthys, 25 November 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[Andrea C.]

What Aranthys said.

If you don't like what BG:EE has to offer, or you are uninterested in it, no one is forcing you to buy it.
If things become interesting for you in the longer run, you'll be able to buy it then.

A lot of modders are working with the devs on the beta, and a user on the official BG:EE forum is developing a new modding tool from scratch. He's in touch with the devs to ensure maximum compatibility with all versions of the game including BG:EE.

The GUI will be more moddable than the original was because there is less hardcoding involved.
I'm not a fan of the blue color, either, but that's something mods can change.

Opcodes and scripts that didn't work have been fixed, and more will continue to be fixed post-ship.
More GUI features are being added and will continue to be added post-ship.

As I said, if things get interesting for you along the way, you can jump the BG:EE bandwagon any time. If they don't, you can skip it altogether and no one will come after you with a pitchfork.

[Almateria]

Jesus.
BGEE won't bring any new people to the modding community. Or maybe it will, but it'll be like 2 guys. Mostly because BG modding isn't really modder-friendly, but also because most people who get excited about BGEE are people who already played the BG OG and are the worst kind of fans. You are being too optimistic, there won't be any kind of magical revival of BG community, even now on the official forums like 90% of people are the old players

[Aranthys]

It ll surely bring more people than the current, slowly decaying status quo.

[Yovaneth]

Here's a thought: while we're mentioning fixpacks, it took a user comment over at the BG:EE forums to make me realise that there are fifty-three (yes - 53) areas missing from the release of BG1. I counted them. Figure that one out...

-Y-

Edited by Yovaneth, 25 November 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[Zireael]

1) Will these 53 areas be included in the BGEE?
2) A possibility of having more than 3 spells in the main screen would have been good.
3) Will the font scale with screen size?

[Yovaneth]

I have no idea about the missing areas - I just counted them. My guess is that they were dropped originally because the game had already gone to 5 CDs (forget TotSC) and it would have needed another CD to fit them all in.

-Y-

Edited by Yovaneth, 25 November 2012 - 05:18 AM.

[Andrea C.]

2) A possibility of having more than 3 spells in the main screen would have been good.

This (and much more) has been officially requested. We'll see what the devs can cook up post-ship.

3) Will the font scale with screen size?

I think yes, but my hardware makes it impossible for me to test this.

[Aranthys]

Here's a thought: while we're mentioning fixpacks, it took a user comment over at the BG:EE forums to make me realise that there are fifty-three (yes - 53) areas missing from the release of BG1. I counted them. Figure that one out...

-Y-

Could you elaborate a bit about these 53 areas please ?

[Yovaneth]

Well, yes I will - but let's see if you can figure the conundrum out first! I'm seriously considering creating a mod to add them back into BGTuTu, but it all depends on how much time I have.

-Y-

[Jarno Mikkola]

2) A possibility of having more than 3 spells in the main screen would have been good.

This (and much more) has been officially requested. We'll see what the devs can cook up post-ship.

Well, in my mind, it would be much easier to include the whole thing in a pre-ship .exe patch to make the interface to be alike the Icewind Dale twos... iow, full customizable. But...
Hmm, 53, or 5 tree areas ?... At least the iesdp area lists only 22 unused areas... ouh, you mean the areas between the areas. as in unique areas where the random encounters happen, all having their own spot between the area tiles.

Edited by Jarno Mikkola, 25 November 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[Yovaneth]

No.

-Y-