What new features do you hope to see in BGEE?

Remove all ads!

I'm actually wondering if the Ascension battle at the end of TOB will be put in this time. I know that originally they meant to have that as the final battle, but it was taken out because it might be too tough for some players. I personally think that the ascension mod should be put in this time. It really makes TOB much better towards the end. Aside from that I would really like to see new subraces and kits. Playing the game as a warlock sounds like it would be really fun.

 

Yes that's probably who they're targeting and it's certainly who's going to buy and enjoy the game most. They might very well miss the opportunity to adapt an old game for a new generation a gamers - a pity, IMO, but if that's what it is, so be it. One can always dream, right?

For one thing, you're forced to reload on the main character's death. And while you may choose to let your party members go, there are only 24 of them in the game, a large portion of which might be of an opposite alignment to you, and several are also not recruitable until very late in the story. Nevermind that if you're a mage and you exhausted every available fighter you're basically screwed, and it's not hard to think of scenarios where you simply cannot afford to lose a party member. You're talking about a barely applicable, essentially aesthetic choice that some die-hard veterans may choose for the sake of change; the problem is still there in its entirety for the vast majority of gamers.

---------- Added 0 hours, 17 minutes and 14 seconds later... ----------

Taking away the challenge... what challenge? Permanent death doesn't make things challenging, it just makes it so you visit the load screen more often. It's a frustration, not a challenge. I call challenge something that I can overcome with the proper strategy; there's no way to overcome death in BG, except through either a loading screen, gobs of cash, or finding replacement NPCs, which is hardly viable.

I think gamers love challenging games, and it's possible to make a game very challenging (much more than BG!) without forcing to player to reload, I've already given examples. As I've argued, I think NWN-style death allows for more challenging combat than BG1-style death, so I completely disagree with the idea that it would somehow "dumb down" or "take away the challenge" from the game.

Point taken. Still, "no reload" games are akin to hardcore characters in Diablo 2, it's a minority of highly experienced players - those who already love the game! - who do that, you can't really use that to defend design choices.

 

As someone who enjoys no reload games, I most certainly can defend my personal taste as a design choice!

And the challenge I speak of is not overcoming death... but avoiding it altogether!

 

Sure...

But that's entirely irrelevant then! The fact that death takes you back to the loading screeb or just disables your character for the duration of the fight doesn't change how difficult it is to avoid it. It changes the consequence - one that takes you out the game for one that keeps you in the game with a temporary disadvantage - not the condition.

 

I find it extremely relevant for my enjoyment of the game. Watching people die, and then conveniently undie a few moments later completely breaks immersion for me.

I want to live in fear of death, and avoid it at all costs. Death should have a heavy penalty. It currently does in Baldur's Gate, and my hope is that it will stay that way. Again, to each their own. We're not making design choices in this thread... we're just sharing what we'd like to see in BGEE. I can appreciate that this is what you want, even if it isn't what I want.

 

Of course, that would depend on your group's playstyle. I understand where your coming from. Going back to my younger days, the DMs of the groups I gamed with didn't ensure your PCs safety. Which to me was the way to go, though if others have different game session styles, to each their own. I enjoyed playing in a game where my PC could bite it at any moment, to me that enhanced the experience.

I probably should state that I don't mind if they cater to the style of others who have differnet play-style preferences than my own, as long as there are options for others with different wants as well. But that is probably asking for alot, I know, purely wishful thinking on my part.

 

Our DM, way back, was a right bastard.
He made sure that every player's character had a 'relative or family member' of sorts who then would be able to jump in, in case of the originals characters demise.

I hated dying. Both in P&P and BG.
But it made all the achievements, all victories and level-up's something great.
If they keep their wits about them, we have nothing to fear.

BGEE + Wasteland 2 will make sure we oldie gamers have damn fine year.

 

I want bards to be able to sing/chant and make physical attacks at the same time. Allow me to be a bard and be effective in combat (plus it is very thematic especially for skald like bards).

 

My point is that I'm not sure you're correct about the "vast majority of gamers" part. What is that claim based on?

I don't think die-hard veterans alone play that way for the sake of change; I think many D&D purists play that way simply because the possibility of death is intrinsic to D&D.

 

Because people don't pay a high price when they can pay a low price. Losing a character is a very high price: people are attached to them, the characters are super useful, they carry items, they provide tactical possibilities, they basically make up much of what goes on in a play session of Baldur's Gate. Losing characters is a huge deal in this game.

Reloading, on the other hand, is merely an annoyance, allows you to try out another strategy, and continue without losing characters. It's just very obviously the most profitable option in the face of death. Unless they're as you mention D&D purists or some experienced players looking for a change, which the vast majority isn't, they're going to reload when a character dies.

But you don't live in fear of death in BG, because you can simply save before each battle and reload if anything goes awry. The only time death is going to be a heavy penalty is if you forgot to save for a while, then you lose progress. Sure you could self-impose the penalty by not reloading, but then that's your own rule, not the game's rule.

However you put it, a save and reload death mechanic is inherently broken.

 

I completely disagree with Dr.Asik's suggestion's for a different system of saving. With most modern games, I find myself wanting a more BG-like system of saving. I especially dislike games that auto-save where you can't pick the time you save yourself. What I like about BG is you can pick the times you like to save yourself and be able to make complete sentences as the name of save-games. I want save-games to be named by myself in a way that's meaningful: if I want to reload to a certain point, be it for starting over from that point or for checking some facts about my current campaign, I want the save-game telling me what it's about, by the name I chose for myself.

As to game-immersion: a character dying and waking up after a short nap, like Dragon-Age or NWN, is a lot more immersion breaking then having to reload. Death should be meaningful, should be the end. The only thing I dislike about resurrection, is picking up all the gear and having to re-equip, but I'm not even sure I want to change that. It would be strange if a character dies, you can leave his stuff lying on the ground and it magically re-appears when you resurrect him in the temple. A resurrection is something like a rebirth - you do it naked.

 

First post here, this is the best news I've had for a long time. I'm the biggest Baldur's gate fan there is, I've played the first one ever since it came out and I'm still playing it up to this day. I've stopped counting how many playthroughs I've made of BG 1, tales, SOA and TOB. Baldur's gate is just like my favorite novel which I like to play over and over and that has always a somewhat different income to keep it fresh. I really really hope they're not gonna let me down on this one. Games these days are such craps Baldur's gates is the best thing that has ever been made. I have faith they'll do a great job though since this is the original Baldur's gate team making it. These guys know how to make a frickin' game and they're not in it just for the money.

So I don't know about you guys but the thing I love the most about baldur's gates, the second one especially is the NPC's and character's interactions. I love the fact that there's an infinite possiblity of NPC combinations and so many possible interactions. Baldur's gate 1 lacked severely in character interactions however so I hope they'll be working on that. Of course the main thing they need to do is to make a smooth passage from Baldur's gate 1 to Baldur's gate 2. I've been waiting for the two games to be bridged for so long and I would be devastated if they didn't do it now since it would mean never.

Now if they want to bridge the two games it will be important to be able to carry on with the same NPC's you had at the end of Baldur's gate 1 and these NPC's need to be more interesting and 3 dimensional than they were in BG1. For this to happen I think they would need to severely cut down on the number of Baldur's gate 1 NPC's otherwise it would just be way too much work to bring the 25 BG1 NPC's into BG 2 with each of them having their individual quests and interesting storylines. I don't see any other way to be able to do this well. It wasn't easy since I love most of those NPC's and I thought about it for a long time and decided on the 10 or 11 NPC's they should keep into BG1 and through BG2. Here's the NPC's I would want them to keep and the ones I don't think they should keep and why:

Ajantis- keep: He could be a sort of Anomen but less annoying with a possiblity to turn him into a fallen paladin. He could have a romance with the PC or with Imoen if the PC is a male and could grow into a darker character when Imoen gets abducted. In BG2 he would turn really badass and could make Anomen and Keldorn obselete. Don't get me wrong I loved Keldorn but he was just sort of a textbook Paladin, Ajantis could be greyer and more interesting.

Alora- discard: Useless, you encounter her way too late... just plain boring.

Coran- discard: he was too over powered, I always wanted to replace Khalid or Kivan with him when you met him in Cloakwood. Now I know you need a womanizer character but that role will be filled by Eldoth.

Dynaheir- keep: Iconic character. I think she still would have to die however comes SOB to make the transition simpler. Meanwhile give her a lot more interactions in BG1 however. Makes it so everyone will be really sad when Dynaheir dies.

Imoen- keep, obviously: This will be one of the best thing about the enhanced edition, fixing imoen. In BG1 Imoen had absolutely no character interactions and she was completely different, she had sort of a psychopatic vibe about her too. That's because she was actually a late addition to the game as we all know and the creators decided to make her main NPC in BG2. Now they will be able to make her an interesting character from beginning to end with tons of character interactions and could have a romance with Ajantis or Eldoth if the PC is a male. It won't be necessary to have her along for the story however. Should the player decide to drop Imoen Irenicus could capture Jaheira or Viconia. If the PC was a female then Irenicus could take whoever the PC is having a romance with. If a player were to solo the game or have an all male cast then Irenicus could throw a curse on the PC or such so that the PC has to hunt him down, just an idea.

Khalid-keep: same as Dynaheir. Also make him a little less pussified and stuttering.

Kivan- discard: Okay so I loved Kivan but I was thinking that he's a very dark character. BG1 should have a bit of a lighter feel before everything turns to sh*t. I think BG1 should have lighter characters that turn darker as the game goes on such as Jaheira and Ajantis.

Minsc- keep: Not much to change here, awesome character, great comic relief. Give him more character interactions, especially with Dynaheir. Also explore the Minsc and Aerie relationship some more comes SOA.

Yeslick- discard: Boring old dwarf, comes too late into the story. I never liked feeling obligated to take him along since he was a prisoner.

Branwen- discard: She was never interesting to me.

Faldorn- discard: She already appears in BG2 as the shadow druid leader.

Garrick- discard: he's kind of awkward. Replace him with Eldoth, BG only needs one bard and Eldoth is far cooler.

Jaheira- keep: Iconic character, just give her more lines and such. Have the romance with her start after Khalid's death just as it is.

Quayle- discard: Jan Jansen is funnier, he'll stay Aerie's foster father.

Safana- discard: There'll be too many thieves, the ****ty character will be Viconia.

Skie- discard: Most useless character in BG, as if there wasn't enough female thieves already. She will appear as a non playable NPC who Eldoth will want to abduct for money.

Xan- Not sure: They could make him really interesting. I'd like to find out what's under his doom and gloom persona. He could have a romance with the PC if female. That would fit with the one good , one neutral , one evil character romances for male characters in BG2.

Edwin- discard: Discard from BG1 that is. He's an awesome character and the smartest of all but I'd rather keep Xzart for BG1. I think you should still be able to recruit him in MaeVar's attic or else the Edwin turns woman storyline could be given to Xzart.

Eldoth- keep: Badass character, he should be met in Beregost instead of Garrick. He would want to get to Baldur's Gate to abduct Ski but there would be a possiblity as a female PC to make him change his mind and to have a romance with him. If the PC is male there could be a Imoen / Eldoth romance and an Imoen/Eldoth/Ajantis triangle where the two guys could fight to death. If they haven't fought to death comes SOA then they could develop a friendship once Imoen is abducted and they'd decide to put their differences aside to find her.

Kagain- discard: One-dimensional character, gold gold gold. Can't have two materialistic NPC's leave alone both being in Beregost.

Montaron- keep: Iconic character. He would probably die comes SOA which would actually affect Xzart quite a bit. I guess the Montaron turned into bird storyline could still be in there with a possiblity of Xzart dying at the end of the quest if done wrong.

Shar-Teel- discard: One dimensional character, male hater, again Viconia is here for that. She was too far off in the map. Why would she just hang out at the ankheg zone waiting for male travelers to fight with? You'd think she would have more important things to worry about. I thought that the whole Angelo's daughter thing was sort of interesting but I never cared enough about her to actually care about her back story. This plot point could be delegated to another character or just dropped altogether.

Tiax- keep: Very funny character. He would be the only NPC you could recruit in the city of BG. I don't know if he should still be in spellhold. Maybe they should keep that in it was hilarious. He could have a quest in BG2 where his crazy self end ends up pissing off the cowled wizards somehow and ends up there. Then maybe a quest later on to cure his mental ilness and make him become an old wise gnome again with different lines and such.

Viconia- keep: Iconic character and one of the most fascinating, keep the romance in, have it start when you recruit her. They could have the thing where she's about to get burned on the fire in BG1 instead of SOA since it was very cool. And it was kind of weird that this flaming fist guy was chasing her alone with his full plate on far deep into the woods.

Xzart- keep: Wicked NPC, Xzart and Montaron make an hilarious team, I think their strange relationship should be explored more until Monty's demise. There are many ways his character could be developed comes SOA.

Now I could get on about what I would want out of SOA's NPC's but I'll leave that for later.

I hope that they'll make so that players get all the stuff back that they had in BG1 back in SOA.

Comes the beginning of TOB you could summon any of the NPC's of BG1 or 2 assuming that they haven't died and that you've actually met the characters.
If you've wronged the characters in any way they might try to kill you after you summon them especially if they're of evil alignment.

Of course all of this is assuming that they really do want to bridge the two games together which I really hope they would or I don't care for this enhanced edition. New quests? There's enough quests already. I want the story that's already there to be tighter and more interesting and for the quests that they do add to be about the NPC's.

So if they do decide to bridge the two games and make them more interesting instead of just packing in more quests and better graphics how would you guys want it to be as far as story goes?

 

I agree that the player should be able to save the game when he chooses and give the saves meaningful names. What I'm concerned with is BG's heavy reliance on save-and-reload to get through any significantly difficult battle. It's possible that not much can realistically be done in BGEE in that regard, but I felt like discussing it anyway.

It's not realistic either that characters heal any wounds by sleeping, never eat or perform any other activity than walking and fighting, that sellers all have infinite amounts of money, or that you can carry enough gold to buy the Sword Coast on yourself, etc. There's a lot of weird things going on in Infinity Engine games that we basically just filter out of our "realism assessment" of the game. When you play Diablo 2 there's nothing more natural than respawning in town when you die, even though that makes no sense. The only reason BG players feel death should be realistic is because it always was that way and they're accustomed to it.

So, the point I'm getting at is that realism and immersion are two very different things. How realism is important to your immersion depends entirely on your expectations. If you find BG immersive at all, then there are lot of unrealistic things you already ignore: death is simply not on the list.

Reloading, on the other hand, breaks immersion completly for everyone everytime, because it physically takes you out of your gameplay session. Between that and a game crash the only difference is a slightly shorter interruption.

 

It often isn't possible to avoid death though. A single arrow can kill you at earlier levels. A few arrows could wipe out several party members. You're forced to reload if the main character dies. Death can often be something that just randomly occurs through no fault of your own and yet the consequences are really severe.

OK, my list including several earlier suggestions:

1. Ease of use stuff included. Stuff like infinte stacking just makes things so much more convenient, even if it is slightly easier. Likewise I'd like either some bags of holding or an increased weight allowance please.
2. Better pathfinding.
3. Tidy up proficiencies. Maybe imitate IWD2 3e rules by giving you a proficiency point in every weapon you can use. The current system is too limiting for the vast array of weapon types.
4. Multiple weapon set-ups like IWD2 so you can change on the fly rather than going through the inventory screen to equip a bow.
5. Again, take spontaneous casting for clerics from IWD2. This will allow them to memorise something other than healing spells.
6. Bards can sing while fighting (meh, still can't imagine I'll use them).
7. Detect Traps to work better. If I'm looking for traps I should be able to find them before I walk over them (assuming I'm skilled enough).
8. Characters not to sod off forever when you kick them out. I like to mix and match and try them out rather than sticking with the same ones all game.
9. More banter.
10. Possibly allow earlier access to NPCs? Definitely put them at level 1 with XP so you can choose how to develop them yourself.
11. More weapons to cover the various types. You should be able to choose any type and have good weapons available to you.

Banter is the only one that should take a lot of work to implement.

 

That is unlikely to happen as it was told that the old content remains and there will be added new one.

I like her. Yes, she's available late, but I used her once and liked it.

He's a fan favorite of many. Plus, He isn't way more powerful than Khalid or Kivan as an archer really, if you do the math. As a balance, Kivan has 18 Str and Khalid better HP.
1st) Coran 3*** in Bows (Missile Adjustment 6 [20 Dex, Elf]) -1 THAC0 penalty, because max level Fighter only 7
2nd) Khalid 3*** in Bows (Missile Adjustment 2 [16 Dex])
3rd) Kivan 2** in Bows (Missile Adjustment 4 [17 Dex, Elf])
So Coran is best with only a 3 THAC0 difference compared to Khalid.
Kivan follows as 3rd best but isn't too much off (only by one less damage and even THAC0 compared to Khalid [3*** over 2** in Bows nets you +2 THAC0 and +1 Damage]).

NO! He's my favorite

He's cool ^^

Edwin is one of the best written NPCs. Plus he has a very different personality from Xzar. If you had only one choice for an evil NPC mage the game would be too one dimensional.

All in all I'd like a better bridging of both games as well.
But only without cutting content, please .

 

You're explaining a rationale that may or may not be held by any given player (and I'm fine with that), but I still don't know what you base the claim on that the majority of them think that way. Just saying that you suppose they will think that way because it 'makes sense' or because that's how you think doesn't really count. People are not necessarily hyper-rational when it comes to games, from what I've seen.

That said, I'm in no way certain that the majority think and play the way I describe either (purists et al), but by far the greatest likelihood, as with most everything, is that there are a wide variety of approaches - the proverbial grey area. Which is why I maintain that's it's a flawed assumption to say that "most" or "all" or even 72.95% of players think this or that. Unless you've conducted extensive studies or something, you can't really say that with authority.

As Marceror pointed out though, we're arguing about good news here so don't take any of that too personally.

Don't forget the 'fun factor' here that IMO informs most games: it's not very exciting to focus on mundane activities, hence there is no function for peeing in most CRPGs. Dying however is serious business, and any dev will tell you that when you can manage to get a player into that sweet spot of being uncertain about their survival, i.e. genuine DANGER, you have caught them hook, line, and sinker. That's what every game dev strives for, and you can't really do that IMO without the possibility of death looming, and hence the possibility of its attendant consequences. You don't want it to be cheap, but you don't want it to be non-existent either. It takes a lot of effort to find that middle ground and it's not easily done.

You kind of sound like maybe you're speaking on behalf of the power-gamers of the world - the sort who would follow along with your Let's Plays in order to do everything rather than actually, you know, play the game. That's not a slam on LPs ... I'm generally very appreciative of them, and you and those others who do them well are engaged in a noble endeavor. But they do tend to represent a completionist mindset, which is not particularly conducive to immersion from the point of view of the content-creator.

This kind of disparity is a good of example of why everyone should just relax and let it happen.

 

I'm all for that but I really want them to improve the BG1 NPC's and give them more lines and some personal quests, if they could pull that off with all 25 of them which is highly unlikely then I'm all for it. The problem is if they do that then surely not all of them will be able to come along for SOA because THAT would be impossible to pull off. So they would need to choose which NPC's could come along for SOA if any of them would. And personally I would hate not being able to transition to SOA with some NPC's that I like, I'd rather them not be in the story at all just so I wouldn't be dissapointed.

She did have 100% open lock but personality wise you can't say she was that interesting.

Thing is Coran was not also on par with Kivan as an archer but he was also the best thief in the game thus making Imoen or any other thief useless which has always made me sad.

Agreed, He's awesome. He could come along for SOA I guess, they could change him to an archer too.

Don't get me wrong I love Edwin, if he was in BG1 though, who would you meet in MaeVar's attic? Unless he left at the end of BG1 but that would be quite sad, he barely remembers or cares about you early SOA which would be really weird if you spent the whole BG1 with him.

Hell I'd like that as well but only if they made it possible to go into SOA with EVERY of those NPC's and gave them all more lines and personal quests which is basically impossible. So for the sake of being able to play through the whole game with some NPC's from BG1 I'd be willing to sacrifice a few of them, like the ones we loved the least. I think we can almost all agree on a few NPC's we wouldn't mind too much departing with. Did any of you truly care for Ski?

 

I've given some objective reasons that you don't address at all. You brush it all off as subjective without even explaining why it is subjective.

Of course I don't have studies.

There's no consequence for death in BG if you reload, except some level of frustration and potentially lost progress. You can choose not to reload, but that's not something the game forces unto you: if don't want the penalty, you just don't take it. I can see how the mechanic allows you to create suspense if you choose to ignore the save-and-reload mechanic; but the fact that it's there means that the game allows you to play without suffering any consequences for death ever.

So, as I said in reply to Marcenor, the way death works in BG fails to create suspense, insofar as any consequences can be ignored through save and reload, and the game heavily encourages you to rely on this as I illustrated. You can create suspense if you choose to: the game doesn't.

Yes of course following any sort of guide breaks immersion considerably, but I don't see the connection with what we're talking about?

 

I agree that the option to save at all times does sort of breaks suspense but hey, that's what playing no reload is for isn't it? It's true however that playing no-reload will never feel quite as exciting as playing in a game that doesn't allow you to do this constant saving and reloading. A fix for that would be to allow you to save only in inns or taverns. I would say the same with the sleeping thing also, you shouldn't be able to sleep in dungeons, makes the game for too easy. You should however still be able to camp outside with a possibility of being attacked during the night. I think those are minor details though but I agree they are worth being taken care of. I wouldn't want game mecanics to take center stage in favor of storyline however.

 

I don't think restricting when a player can save is a good idea. It'll mean more progress lost on reloads and that would just be very frustrating. Also sometimes one doesn't need to go back to town for a very long time; I did the entire Cloakwood + Mines segment without it, the entirety of Durlag's Tower without it, etc. Making saving only allowed in some areas would force the player to travel to these areas just to save which would feel weird and definitely be a source of frustration.

My pov is that if the cost of death wasn't so absurdly high, players would be more willing to take risks and keep playing instead of reloading. In particular for low-level parties at the start of the game, where every party member is extremely susceptible to dying at all times, they're all essential to your survival (strength in numbers!), and you don't have any means of resurrecting them. That's where the current mechanic is especially aggravating.