Decline BG1EE might as well be a different game

[cretin]

One of the most commonly entrenched opinions out there now among people who still play Baldur's gate 1 is that you just "might as well" get the EE version and that its just better out of the box - higher res, QoL addons, BG2 engine and so on - and won't need to waste your time installing various fixes for ye olde game. Let's put aside for a minute that "waste your time" to get BG1 running well necessitates maybe 3 files (widescreen, widescreen GUI and cnc-ddraw) that take zero effort to install...

Having played a fair bit of EE BG1 and now a bit of classic BG1, it strikes me that it is thoroughly disingenuous to act as if the changes in EE just alter inconsequential stuff and for the better. For example, various alleged "QoL" changes in EE actually change the game considerably, some examples:
1. Faster movement speed - This may make map clearing less of a chore for modern players, but it also (in my opinion, negatively) affects the tactical combat - it far faster to reposition your team, to close with ranged enemies and spellcasters, and also to disengage or kite enemies.
2. Equipment "QoL" - one example of this that annoys me because its not at all a QoL change and is actually a distinct gameplay change is that in EE you can equip a bow during the same time you have a two handed weapon equipped, or a shield. This is obviously against intended behavior by the devs that asks you to make a decision about having ranged ability vs maximizing melee offense/defense. Many EE players dont see this distinction as important because of the next change
3. Paused inventory screen - it was obviously intended behavior to have the game be un-paused when you manage inventory, hence why the game tells you that you're no longer paused when you open the inventory. This again isn't a QoL change, it's something that distinctly affects the gameplay. With the paused inventory screen, you have all the time in the world to change equipment and items during combat. Functions such as the quick weapon and quick item bars are effectively made redundant by an inventory screen that pauses the action.
4. Collision changes - for whatever dumb reason, beamdog decided to make it so units can more easily pass one another and into tight corridors, including large enemies. Perhaps they think it is a "cheese" to be able to use the terrain to block off enemies, but it isn't - even in BG1's wilderness maps, there are many chokepoints in the terrain you can use to your advantage against hordes, and I would argue that this is intended. It is also in general just easier for any enemy to simply walk through your frontliners to get to your squishies, for you to your enemy's squishies. The changes here make valid tactics much less effective, formations less relevant, and make BG1's benny hill moments even more frequent, as well as exacerbating noted problems with IE combat.

It's inevitable that I will notice more shit as I go along but note here, I haven't even attacked the low hanging fruit of BG2 proficiencies, kits or the gay ass intrusive NPCs.

Lilura was right all along, and at this point I think the only reason to use the EE is because you want to play with SCS.

 

[King Crispy]

All valid points but one thing you're not taking into account:

- Baldur's Gate, as a supposed simulation of the Dungeons & Dragons game, shouldn't be real-time in any way, shape or form. RTwP is terrible, it is an abomination, and if you play BG because you like RTwP then I submit that you're partially responsible for the decline of the RPG genre in general.

So to have the inventory screen pause for you, to have somewhat relaxed collision detection for your team, to allow for other relatively minor "QoL" alterations isn't so bad in my book. You're just slowly chipping away at the shittiness that is the game's original design.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Most of the things you point out actually come from applying BG2's engine to BG1, and they are not really stuff that Beamdog came up with... I can see those changes as the result of the modders thinking that playing bg1 in bg2's engine would be a good thing. And 4 is a positive if we're talking about dungeons like Firewine... If anything, a real issue is the collision detection between your own party members, sure, they can walk past one another more easily, but they are also prone to get stuck way more easily.

EE was absolutely unnecessary. It was most likely made with BG3 as a long term goal, though.

 

[Netch]

- Baldur's Gate, as a supposed simulation of the Dungeons & Dragons game, shouldn't be real-time in any way, shape or form. RTwP is terrible, it is an abomination, and if you play BG because you like RTwP then I submit that you're partially responsible for the decline of the RPG genre in general.

You ever read the AD&D 2E rulebook? The game's original combat system was very close to a real-time system, wherein players would have a short amount of time to shout out their actions, initiative would be rolled for players as a team after turn declarations, and damage/action outcomes would be calculated after the fact. Turn-based combat was an optional choice if you wanted much more explicitly-defined fights. So actually RTwP is basically closer to the source material than turn-based is. The more you know!

 

[King Crispy]

Pen-and-paper D&D gameplay could only be characterized as "real-time" if the DM were sitting there timing each player's decisions with a stopwatch. Even if he was, it'd still be turn-based (rather, phase-based if using full initiative rules).

So fake news.

 

[Netch]

Pen-and-paper D&D gameplay could only be characterized as "real-time" if the DM were sitting there timing each player's decisions with a stopwatch.

Fake news.

It was clear that in PnP D&D there was an intention to bring combat as close to what it would be like in real life as possible, by trying to make it hectic and fast-paced. I suggest checking out the rulebooks for yourself, you'd probably learn a lot!

 

[King Crispy]

Netch I've been reading D&D rules since well before you were born. I'd like to see a citation on the claim that the combat was being pushed to being as close to real-life as possible, specifically by making it "real-time", which is impossible in a tabletop environment anyway. Is every player supposed to shout out his intentions simultaneously?

 

[Netch]

Netch I've been reading D&D rules since well before you were born. I'd like to see a citation on the claim that the combat was being pushed to being as colse to real-life as possible, specifically by making it "real-time", which is impossible in a tabletop environment anyway. Is every player supposed to shout out his intentions simultaneously?

If you'd like a citation then simply crack open your 2E rulebook and take a look at the combat section - it's all very plain to see right there.

 

[cretin]

All valid points but one thing you're not taking into account:

- Baldur's Gate, as a supposed simulation of the Dungeons & Dragons game, shouldn't be real-time in any way, shape or form. RTwP is terrible, it is an abomination, and if you play BG because you like RTwP then I submit that you're partially responsible for the decline of the RPG genre in general.

So to have the inventory screen pause for you, to have somewhat relaxed collision detection for your team, to allow for other relatively minor "QoL" alterations isn't so bad in my book. You're just slowly chipping away at the shittiness that is the game's original design.

This is non sequitur I think.

That RTWP is bad or BG should've been TB, it doesn't follow that the changes EE makes to how BG functions are improvements to the game.

Paused inventory makes aspects of the management completely redundant - why should I care what I prioritize to go into the quick access slots when I just can hit I and use whatever I want whenever I want? Having limited quick access slots, being unable to equip certain items at the same time, and having an un-paused inventory screen are design choices that go hand in hand, without one the others are made redundant.

Similarly the relaxed collision detection is a huge flaw given the ways in which IE combat was already noted to be flawed. One of the first things anyone suggests to improve IE's combat is exactly what J Soyman did in POE - more stickiness (albeit I think POE's "engagement" system is less elegant and doesn't work as well as AoO's introduced in 3.5). And yet, the changes to collision actively make this aspect of IE combats worse than it already was!

 

[King Crispy]

If you'd like a citation then simply crack open your 2E rulebook and take a look at the combat section - it's all very plain to see right there.

That's not how this works. You made the claim, you provide the proof.

 

[King Crispy]

That RTWP is bad or BG should've been TB, it doesn't follow that the changes EE makes to how BG functions are improvements to the game.

I'm not arguing that, cretin. I've already conceded that your points are valid. I'm simply shitting on the notion that original BG is somehow good or worth restoring. In my opinion, it's still shit no matter whether OE or EE.

 

[Ladonna]

I already came to this conclusion with BG TuTu, and quickly uninstalled it. I never bothered with the EE's for any of the games after this.

 

[Mauman]

Netch I've been reading D&D rules since well before you were born. I'd like to see a citation on the claim that the combat was being pushed to being as colse to real-life as possible, specifically by making it "real-time", which is impossible in a tabletop environment anyway. Is every player supposed to shout out his intentions simultaneously?

If you'd like a citation then simply crack open your 2E rulebook and take a look at the combat section - it's all very plain to see right there.

No. I own the 2e rulebook and, having read it numerous times, I'm calling you for being full of shit.

Prove me wrong by CITING IT YOURSELF.

 

[Netch]

"Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These steps are:
1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2 The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3. Initiative is determined.
4 Attacks are made in order of initiative...
"Next, the players give a general indication of what their characters are planning to do. This does not have to be perfectly precise and can be changed somewhat, if the DM decides that circumstances warrant.
If the characters are battling goblins, a player can say, 'My fighter will attack' without having to announce which goblin he will strike...
"In the third step, dice are rolled to determine initiative, according to the rules for initiative..."
"Here's an example of the combat sequence in action: Rath is leading a party through the corridors of a dungeon. Right behind him are Rupert and Delsenora. Rounding a bend, they see a group of orcs and trolls about 20 feet away... The DM asks, 'What are you going to do?'
Harry (playing Rath, a dwarf who hates orcs): 'Orcs? - CHARGE!'
Anne (playing Delsenora the Mage): 'Uh- what!? Wait - don't do that... I was going to... now I can't use a fireball.'
DM: 'Rath is charging forward. Quick - what are you doing?'
Jon (playing Rupert, the half-elf, to Anne) "Cast a spell! (To DM) Can I fire my bow over him?'
DM: 'Sure, he's short.'
Jon: 'OK, I'll shoot at orcs.'
DM: 'Anne, tell me what Delsenora's doing or she'll lose the round trying to make up her mind!'
Anne: 'Got it! - Acid arrow spell at the lead troll.'
DM: 'Fine. Harry, Rath is in front. Roll for initiative.'" (Page 54, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Guide).
"Initiative is normally determined with a single roll for each side in a conflict. This tells whether all the members of the group get to act before or after those of the other side(s). There are also two optional methods that can be used to determine initiative. Each of these optional methods breaks the group action down into more individual initiatives. However, the general method of determining initiative remains the same in all cases" (Page 55, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Guide).
"To determine the initiative order for a round of combat, roll 1d10 for each side in the battle... If both (or all) sides roll the same number for initiative, everything happens simultaneously - all attack rolls, damage, spells, and other actions are completed before any results are applied. It is possible for a mage to be slain by goblins who collapse from his sleep spell at the end of the round" (Page 55, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Guide).
"Individual Initiative
(Optional Rule)
This method of determining initiative is the same as that given earlier, except that each PC, NPC, and monster involved in the fight rolls and then modifies his own initiative roll. This gives combat a more realistic feel, but at the expense of quick play. To players, it may not seem like too much for each to roll a separate initiative die, but consider the difficulties: Imagine a combat between six player characters (each controlled by a player) and five hirelings and henchmen against 16 hobgoblins and five ogres (all of which must be rolled by the DM). Furthermore, each die roll must be modified according to each individual's actions. The resulting rolls make every combat round a major calculation. This method is not recommended for large-scale combats. It is best used with small battles in which characters on the same side have vastly different speeds (Page 56, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Guide) *Bold added for emphasis.

 

[King Crispy]

It may seem strange for me to attempt to explain Netch's thought process on the matter, but I'm a glutton for punishment:

I think he means that BG's combat system is attempting to, in a truly real-time manner, emulate specifically 2E's combat structure as closely as possible. I think this is a very awkward conclusion to come to, because we have to take into account the computer game industry's colossal push towards real-time gaming at the time, but at least on a surface level it makes a little sense.

Initiative sequences, declarations of intent by the players, etc., apparently were changed around, especially from 1E (my favorite) to 2E, then again in 3 and 3.5E. Do I have that correct?

I just don't recall ever reading, in all my years, Gygax' or anyone else's intentions to make D&D combat, no matter the edition, truly seem like it's all happening simultaneously. Again, that's practically impossible.

 

[Mauman]

I had a feeling that was going to be the citation in question.

And it's pretty stupid.

You're still talking about two groups (the monsters as led by the DM) and the players DETERMING TURNS VIA INITIATIVE, which is not even remotely real time.

 

[King Crispy]

Anyway we sort of hijacked cretin's thread. cretin, if you object, tell us all to fuck off, and we'll... probably ignore you.

 

[Netch]

It may seem strange for me to attempt to explain Netch's thought process on the matter, but I'm a glutton for punishment:

I think he means that BG's combat system is attempting to, in a truly real-time manner, emulate specifically 2E's combat structure as closely as possible. I think this is a very awkward conclusion to come to, because we have to take into account the computer game industry's colossal push towards real-time gaming at the time, but at least on a surface level it makes a little sense.

Initiative sequences, declarations of intent by the players, etc., apparently were changed around, especially from 1E (my favorite) to 2E, then again in 3 and 3.5E. Do I have that correct?

I just don't recall ever reading, in all my years, Gygax' or anyone else's intentions to make D&D combat, no matter the edition, truly seem like it's all happening simultaneously. Again, that's practically impossible.

No explanation needed, friend. My posts speak for themselves. Baldur's Gate is based on the AD&D 2E Ruleset, and therefore their choice for RTwP makes plenty of sense given their attempt to emulate Second Edition's combat system.

 

[King Crispy]

Yeah, yeah, you're welcome that I explained your thought process for you.

 

[luj1]

One of the most commonly entrenched opinions out there now among people who still play Baldur's gate 1 is that you just "might as well" get the EE version and that its just better out of the box - higher res, QoL addons, BG2 engine and so on - and won't need to waste your time installing various fixes for ye olde game. Let's put aside for a minute that "waste your time" to get BG1 running well necessitates maybe 3 files (widescreen, widescreen GUI and cnc-ddraw) that take zero effort to install...

Having played a fair bit of EE BG1 and now a bit of classic BG1, it strikes me that it is thoroughly disingenuous to act as if the changes in EE just alter inconsequential stuff and for the better. For example, various alleged "QoL" changes in EE actually change the game considerably, some examples:
1. Faster movement speed - This may make map clearing less of a chore for modern players, but it also (in my opinion, negatively) affects the tactical combat - it far faster to reposition your team, to close with ranged enemies and spellcasters, and also to disengage or kite enemies.
2. Equipment "QoL" - one example of this that annoys me because its not at all a QoL change and is actually a distinct gameplay change is that in EE you can equip a bow during the same time you have a two handed weapon equipped, or a shield. This is obviously against intended behavior by the devs that asks you to make a decision about having ranged ability vs maximizing melee offense/defense. Many EE players dont see this distinction as important because of the next change
3. Paused inventory screen - it was obviously intended behavior to have the game be un-paused when you manage inventory, hence why the game tells you that you're no longer paused when you open the inventory. This again isn't a QoL change, it's something that distinctly affects the gameplay. With the paused inventory screen, you have all the time in the world to change equipment and items during combat. Functions such as the quick weapon and quick item bars are effectively made redundant by an inventory screen that pauses the action.
4. Collision changes - for whatever dumb reason, beamdog decided to make it so units can more easily pass one another and into tight corridors, including large enemies. Perhaps they think it is a "cheese" to be able to use the terrain to block off enemies, but it isn't - even in BG1's wilderness maps, there are many chokepoints in the terrain you can use to your advantage against hordes, and I would argue that this is intended. It is also in general just easier for any enemy to simply walk through your frontliners to get to your squishies, for you to your enemy's squishies. The changes here make valid tactics much less effective, formations less relevant, and make BG1's benny hill moments even more frequent, as well as exacerbating noted problems with IE combat.

It's inevitable that I will notice more shit as I go along but note here, I haven't even attacked the low hanging fruit of BG2 proficiencies, kits or the gay ass intrusive NPCs.

Lilura was right all along, and at this point I think the only reason to use the EE is because you want to play with SCS.

youre right about everything here

havent found a good EE yet, except maybe NwN since it enables some fancy PW stuff and modding

 

[Netch]

I had a feeling that was going to be the citation in question.

And it's pretty stupid.

You're still talking about two groups (the monsters as led by the DM) and the players DETERMING TURNS VIA INITIATIVE, which is not even remotely real time.

Players shouting out actions quickly, equal initiative rolls playing out at the same time, rolling initiative as teams... that doesn't sound like it's trying to get as close to real time as possible to you?

 

[luj1]

So to have the inventory screen pause for you, to have somewhat relaxed collision detection for your team, to allow for other relatively minor "QoL" alterations isn't so bad in my book.

Shut up bum

 

[luj1]

I already came to this conclusion with BG TuTu, and quickly uninstalled it. I never bothered with the EE's for any of the games after this.

You just play OG BG then?

 

[luj1]

I've been reading D&D rules since well before you were born

Codex is full of 60 year olds with shit taste so fk off

 

[Mauman]

I had a feeling that was going to be the citation in question.

And it's pretty stupid.

You're still talking about two groups (the monsters as led by the DM) and the players DETERMING TURNS VIA INITIATIVE, which is not even remotely real time.

Players shouting out actions quickly, equal initiative rolls playing out at the same time, rolling initiative as teams... that doesn't sound like it's trying to get as close to real time as possible to you?

Unless you're trying to imply that speed chess is real time. There's a difference between timed turns and real time.

Never mind there's no recorded mechanics in the book for actual timed turns. This is a citation of group that works in a particular way. It's not actually backed by the mechanics listed in the book.

Hence my words that relying on this as your argument is "pretty stupid".