Decline BG1EE might as well be a different game

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I find most of these complaints overwrought, if valid. Kits are typically strict upgrades and too powerful for BG1, for sure. Increased movement speed is only really an issue with bears and gibberlings early on. Slightly reduced collision is minor and it cuts both ways. Weapon swapping and paused inventory are definitely handholding. Prevelance of magic (unbreakable) weapons diminishes the iron crisis, but again, is overstated. A new player will not have the metaknowledge to be effected by this. It's also quite easy for most of the party to have a magic weapon before they even enter the Nashkell mines in vanilla.

While I generally agree with the OP, much of this is hyperbole. The game isn't terribly diminished for it, and it still stands amoung the greatest. One thing the OP casually overlooks about the EE, is the improved AI. Its not on SCS level, but they definitely took heavy inspiration from it. This does much to counterweight the changes brought by the BG2 engine.

 

[Harthwain]

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).

Obviously PnP RPGs are much more limited in this field compared to cRPGs, where you have technical capabilities to design your combat system to work in real-time. Or be truly simultaneous (even if still turn-based and not real-time).

Consider the following: combat consists of rounds, each round taking 6 seconds of the in-game "real-time", during which you decide on movement and action. You can translate that into a video game by giving each character Movement Points and Action Points that can be allocated per round. Then multiply that by 10 (1 turn = 10 rounds) and you will roughly get what you need for a single simultaneously executed turn.

This is exactly what Baldur's Gate 2 did, and is explained in Baldur's Gate 2 manual (page 66). So this is pretty much true to the spirit of AD&D rules. The only difference between what I said and what BioWare did was that they kept the "clock" running non-stop, resulting in true real-time. With the added option to pause at any time, for those who wanted something closer to turn-based experience (as mentioned on page 67).

The reason this was possible is because a computer is capable of doing calculations all the time, something that's not possible in PnP for technical reasons.

 

[Infinitron]

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.

Is this an anti-BGT/TuTU post disguised as an anti-BG:EE post?

 

[Matalarata]

Consider the following: combat consists of rounds, each round taking 6 seconds of the in-game "real-time"

A round in AD&D 2nd edition is one minute, not six seconds. It's supposed to be the abstraction of characters feinting, dodging around, trying to find an opening and casting long-assed spells.

 

[Serus]

I see you PnP nerds are trying to draw attention to your PnP systems and mechanisms. Again.

I see that and I raise a bomb: It doesnt matter. Specifically, PnP system, mechanisms, and experiences, dont matter to a computer game. We judge a computer game with its developed system on its own, not by PnP.

With that dismissal in mind, Let's go back to the point and agree that EE is an abomination.

1. Faster movement speed -
2. Equipment "QoL" - can equip a bow during the same time you have a two handed weapon equipped, or a shield.
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.
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.

All are shits. SHITS! This just make combat easier for the noobs, is all. They are the 4 reasons why you should use total conversion mod to play BG1 in BG2 engine instead of suffering EE.

And before you whine SCS, let me remind you that the 4 reasons showcase very clearly the mindset of devs: cater to the dumbs. With that, if SCS can work to its intended tactical difficulty in EE is a huge question mark. Specically I dont trust the devs to let SCS work as designed. if they say it does, pure marketing and empty promise to the loud audience.

Your claim would be correct when talking about a system made from scratch specifically for the game in question. But when you put a D&D logo on the box and advertise it as "a d&d computer game" then yes, pnp rules have meaning. Otherwise the D&D sticker doesn't mean anything at all (yep even setting is not called "d&d"). It is developers trying to deceive the buyers. Which is common but it doesn't mean that it is good or that we should like it. Nota bene the practice existed for a long time but at least games like Eye of the Beholder didn't insist on being pnp-like experience as much as infinity games were portrayed. And even then it was a questionable practice.

For the record, I agree that (pnp) rpgs are completely different animal from (computer) rpgs. This why i'm pefering original game systems made for crpgs. However if you intend of using pnp one - then use it. Otherwise there is no point. Forgotten Realms is banal-shit-boring as fantasy setting can be. Sorry, forgot Golarion.

Your complaint would be correct about 3 decades ago when DnD started getting adapted to computer games.

Nowadays there's nearly one hundred DnD games of all types on computer systems. There are a lot of gamers who never play tabletop and wont, no matter what.

Demand DND exclusivity to pnp is too late by now~

What exclusivity? What does that even supposed to mean in the context? I know there are many but what does it have to do with anything that has been said? Even when first ever dnd computer game* was made some of its players never played the p&p game before. Again, what does it have to do with... anything? Your answer makes no sense whatsoever.

*apart from some 8 bit console s**t, Gold Box games were the first according to wiki.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I still don't get why they went that route? Was SSIs GB, Dark Sun, or even WOTES (warriors of the eterbal sun) & OOTG (order of the griffin) tactical combat that terrible?

Feels like this was to appease consol gamers. TTBC is my preferred party combat. Oh! It was the solution to the Quick combat command eh (I'm assuming as some battles you wanted it just over with.... no quick like Wizard's Crown though).

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=814004

That shit aside..... It does sound like EE is completely different tgan the original. Some I could forgive but sprite collision issue and tampering totally will change your tactical play. Meh!

 

[Serus]

I still don't get why they went that route? Was SSIs GB, Dark Sun, or even WOTES (warriors of the eterbal sun) & OOTG (order of the griffin) tactical combat that terrible?

Feels like this was to appease consol gamers. TTBC is my preferred party combat. Oh! It was the solution to the Quick combat command eh (I'm assuming as some battles you wanted it just over with.... no quick like Wizard's Crown though).

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=814004

That shit aside..... It does sound like EE is completely different tgan the original. Some I could forgive but sprite collision issue and tampering totally will change your tactical play. Meh!

Who went with what? Infinity being RTwP? It was at the height of the popularity of rts games and iirc they had an engine made for real-time already. In short - money.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I still don't get why they went that route? Was SSIs GB, Dark Sun, or even WOTES (warriors of the eterbal sun) & OOTG (order of the griffin) tactical combat that terrible?

Feels like this was to appease consol gamers. TTBC is my preferred party combat. Oh! It was the solution to the Quick combat command eh (I'm assuming as some battles you wanted it just over with.... no quick like Wizard's Crown though).

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=814004

That shit aside..... It does sound like EE is completely different tgan the original. Some I could forgive but sprite collision issue and tampering totally will change your tactical play. Meh!

Who went with what? Infinity being RTwP? It was at the height of the popularity of rts games and iirc they had an engine made for real-time already. In short - money.

They were working on an RTS called Battleground Infinity. Black Isle suggested they make a D&D game instead and they repurposed their work and made the Infinity Engine and BG1.

 

[Average Manatee]

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.

True, but BG1 needs it. The maps are huge and clearing them takes a long time even with BG2 movespeed.

Also, ranged spam is generally considered very powerful if not overpowered in BG1. Even in BG1EE it maintains most of this advantage and you can empty the entire bandit camp with like 2 web spells + a bunch of people spamming arrows and bullets, and that's with SCS doing whatever it does to boost that fight. Enemies being able to close on you faster nerfs this slightly.

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

This is incorrect. You can equip a sling and a one handed weapon+shield, or a bow and a two handed weapon. The idea that this is some kind of intentional balance decision is stupid. It's a UI limitation, the engine had tons of rough edges like this along with cut corners and unimplemented features.

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.

If you are playing at the default of 30 FPS its not terribly hard to change weapons mid fight, and making this one very specific part of the game require player reflexes is weird. Fixing both this and point #2 is fine.

If you want to complain, then complain about the fact that BG1 let you change armor mid-fight which is both incredibly stupid and against AD&D rules. But sure, using a bow with a shield is supposed to be exactly as hard as changing armor.

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.

BG1 AI is basically "attack the nearest thing" anyway, so unless you're using an AI mod like SCS its barely relevant. It's probably a consequence of faster movement speed, generally games perform collision by detecting if you are inside something else after each step of movement, so faster steps = more ability to walk through each other.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

The pausing when viewing the inventory screen was introduced in BG2. Most likely as an answer to player input after BG1, considering encounters can be brutal and you can get 1 hit killed even in later stages of the game.
Bioware were very receptive of player's opinions when developing BG2, actually. Whether this was good or bad in the end, I guess it's a matter of preference.

 

[laclongquan]

I see you PnP nerds are trying to draw attention to your PnP systems and mechanisms. Again.

I see that and I raise a bomb: It doesnt matter. Specifically, PnP system, mechanisms, and experiences, dont matter to a computer game. We judge a computer game with its developed system on its own, not by PnP.

With that dismissal in mind, Let's go back to the point and agree that EE is an abomination.

1. Faster movement speed -
2. Equipment "QoL" - can equip a bow during the same time you have a two handed weapon equipped, or a shield.
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.
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.

All are shits. SHITS! This just make combat easier for the noobs, is all. They are the 4 reasons why you should use total conversion mod to play BG1 in BG2 engine instead of suffering EE.

And before you whine SCS, let me remind you that the 4 reasons showcase very clearly the mindset of devs: cater to the dumbs. With that, if SCS can work to its intended tactical difficulty in EE is a huge question mark. Specically I dont trust the devs to let SCS work as designed. if they say it does, pure marketing and empty promise to the loud audience.

Your claim would be correct when talking about a system made from scratch specifically for the game in question. But when you put a D&D logo on the box and advertise it as "a d&d computer game" then yes, pnp rules have meaning. Otherwise the D&D sticker doesn't mean anything at all (yep even setting is not called "d&d"). It is developers trying to deceive the buyers. Which is common but it doesn't mean that it is good or that we should like it. Nota bene the practice existed for a long time but at least games like Eye of the Beholder didn't insist on being pnp-like experience as much as infinity games were portrayed. And even then it was a questionable practice.

For the record, I agree that (pnp) rpgs are completely different animal from (computer) rpgs. This why i'm pefering original game systems made for crpgs. However if you intend of using pnp one - then use it. Otherwise there is no point. Forgotten Realms is banal-shit-boring as fantasy setting can be. Sorry, forgot Golarion.

Your complaint would be correct about 3 decades ago when DnD started getting adapted to computer games.

Nowadays there's nearly one hundred DnD games of all types on computer systems. There are a lot of gamers who never play tabletop and wont, no matter what.

Demand DND exclusivity to pnp is too late by now~

What exclusivity? What does that even supposed to mean in the context? I know there are many but what does it have to do with anything that has been said? Even when first ever dnd computer game* was made some of its players never played the p&p game before. Again, what does it have to do with... anything? Your answer makes no sense whatsoever.

*apart from some 8 bit console s**t, Gold Box games were the first according to wiki.

Isnt that obvious? You try to apply PnP standard, experience, system, how PnP DnD work to computer games. COMPUTER games are not table top sessions.
There's very little in common between two kind of playing, other than certain common setting, background. Even then the writings and design would be different, because what work in tabletop would be too cumblesome to work in computer.
Practically you demand DnD belong exclusively to PnP style. Computer games must follow PnP style, no matter how unpractical that is.
DnD Exclusivity to PnP, so to speak...

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Shut up King Crispy, much like Jon Snow you know nothing. DnD was always meant to be real time... Do you think Night Goat and Gregz had their zen archer saga beef in turn based? They were literally running to forums to spill the beans simultaneously and it created great drama for everyone else!

 

[Chippy]

The argument for me can be distilled down to the age-old view of roleplaying vs powergaming. It seems to me that BG1 was more of an exploratory roleplaying game for me.

Just the way they handled the ambush encounters (Edit: in EE) spoiled the game as I believe it was built on the BG2 system. So you'd get more XP from ambushes in an area than you would from the area itself. This ruined the XP curve and difficulty that I got from the game as a noob, and even years later as a veteran if you roleplayed the game.

Then there was that shit they pulled with SOD where the enemies just tramp towards your party after your stealth character reveals themselves. I heard that's in other EE games as well. As the millenials say, I just can't even begin on that.

 

[Arthandas]

Oh no, all those bugfixes, engine upgrades and optional features are ruining my game, how dare they improve it!

 

[Butter]

Reminder that BG was mega decline from the Gold Box series, and it is deeply regrettable that people still hold it up as an exemplar of CRPGs.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Oh no, all those bugfixes, engine upgrades and optional features are ruining my game, how dare they improve it!

It's not optional when they've included fundamental gameplay features that weren't there before, Trent.

 

[Sykar]

This is the reason why I got the GoG version before EE came out. Beamturd can go fuck themselves preferably with barbed wired baseball bat the fucking ass cunts.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Hmmmmm...... brings back memories. Good times... good times.....

 

[PrK]

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.

Is this an anti-BGT/TuTU post disguised as an anti-BG:EE post?

Literally the only reason to play either is SCS. And it is still more akin to a recreation in a new engine than a remaster. If you've only played BGT/TuTu/EE you have simply never played Baldur's Gate.

 

[JarlFrank]

BG1 is a boring game anyway and the only reason to play it is to level a dual classed character for BG2

 

[cretin]

Enemies being able to close on you faster nerfs this slightly.

Enemy speeds remain the same. Thats part of the problem. see: vanilla vs tutu
https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/BG1TuTu_vs_Vanilla_BG

So the problems of PCs moving faster is purely advantageous to the player. I doubt BD changed this.

It's probably a consequence of faster movement speed, generally games perform collision by detecting if you are inside something else after each step of movement, so faster steps = more ability to walk through each other.

No, BD trannies definitely changed sizes - probably in an attempt to fix the notorious pathfinding problems they introduced/exacerbated. I remember this because BD fanboys were talking on the forums about how battles in BG2 were changed due large enemies now being able to enter chokepoints that they couldn't in vanilla BG2.

This is incorrect. You can equip a sling and a one handed weapon+shield, or a bow and a two handed weapon. The idea that this is some kind of intentional balance decision is stupid. It's a UI limitation, the engine had tons of rough edges like this along with cut corners and unimplemented features.

Intended behavior.

So anyone using a bow - the best ranged weapon class in the game - cannot also be equipping a shield at the same time.

 

[Mauman]

Enemies being able to close on you faster nerfs this slightly.

Enemy speeds remain the same. Thats part of the problem. see: vanilla vs tutu
https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/BG1TuTu_vs_Vanilla_BG

So the problems of PCs moving faster is purely advantageous to the player. I doubt BD changed this.

It's probably a consequence of faster movement speed, generally games perform collision by detecting if you are inside something else after each step of movement, so faster steps = more ability to walk through each other.

No, BD trannies definitely changed sizes - probably in an attempt to fix the notorious pathfinding problems they introduced/exacerbated. I remember this because BD fanboys were talking on the forums about how battles in BG2 were changed due large enemies now being able to enter chokepoints that they couldn't in vanilla BG2.

This is incorrect. You can equip a sling and a one handed weapon+shield, or a bow and a two handed weapon. The idea that this is some kind of intentional balance decision is stupid. It's a UI limitation, the engine had tons of rough edges like this along with cut corners and unimplemented features.

Intended behavior.

So anyone using a bow - the best ranged weapon class in the game - cannot also be equipping a shield at the same time.

Funnily enough, in most versions of dnd (including 2nd I believe) you're not supposed to be able to use a sling one handed either. Yes, you can shoot the sling one handed, but require two hands to load AND shoot.

edit - just looked in the player's handbook. Surprisingly, it's not mentioned there. I guess technically in 2nd edition you can use a sling one-handed due to the writers forgetting basic logic. Any GM with half a brain (such as mine back in the day) are likely to houserule it in though. That being said, this was changed after 2nd ed.

 

[Jason Liang]

... it's a SLING, not a SLINGSHOT

 

[Average Manatee]

Enemy speeds remain the same. Thats part of the problem. see: vanilla vs tutu
https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/BG1TuTu_vs_Vanilla_BG

So the problems of PCs moving faster is purely advantageous to the player. I doubt BD changed this.

Play the game and you can clearly see that BG1EE has faster movement than BG1 for both characters and enemies. I don't have TuTu installed to check but I'd guess its the same, because wikis are commonly written by retards.

No, BD trannies definitely changed sizes - probably in an attempt to fix the notorious pathfinding problems they introduced/exacerbated. I remember this because BD fanboys were talking on the forums about how battles in BG2 were changed due large enemies now being able to enter chokepoints that they couldn't in vanilla BG2.

Maybe. I know beamdog fucked up pathing somehow, leading to the bug where everyone gets stuck inside each other. Still, who cares? BG1 barely has chokepoints.

Intended behavior.

So anyone using a bow - the best ranged weapon class in the game - cannot also be equipping a shield at the same time.

The fact that a UI limitation is spelled out in the manual doesn't mean its not a UI limitation.

Also, bows, the best ranged weapon class? lmao, no, 90% of the time its slings thanks to the str damage increase, especially on the main character with 19 strength (+potential DUHM) or using a strength buff on other characters. Which, assuming you want them to melee, you should be doing anyway. The only exception is the 4 or 5 battles in the game where you can spam the very limited supply of arrows that explode into fireballs.

Although IIRC there might have been something about slings not adding str damage in BG1. Surprised you aren't complaining about that considering that's actually a significant balance change.

 

[cretin]

Enemies being able to close on you faster nerfs this slightly.

Enemy speeds remain the same. Thats part of the problem. see: vanilla vs tutu
https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/BG1TuTu_vs_Vanilla_BG

So the problems of PCs moving faster is purely advantageous to the player. I doubt BD changed this.

It's probably a consequence of faster movement speed, generally games perform collision by detecting if you are inside something else after each step of movement, so faster steps = more ability to walk through each other.

No, BD trannies definitely changed sizes - probably in an attempt to fix the notorious pathfinding problems they introduced/exacerbated. I remember this because BD fanboys were talking on the forums about how battles in BG2 were changed due large enemies now being able to enter chokepoints that they couldn't in vanilla BG2.

This is incorrect. You can equip a sling and a one handed weapon+shield, or a bow and a two handed weapon. The idea that this is some kind of intentional balance decision is stupid. It's a UI limitation, the engine had tons of rough edges like this along with cut corners and unimplemented features.

Intended behavior.

So anyone using a bow - the best ranged weapon class in the game - cannot also be equipping a shield at the same time.

Funnily enough, in most versions of dnd (including 2nd I believe) you're not supposed to be able to use a sling one handed either. Yes, you can shoot the sling one handed, but require two hands to load AND shoot.

edit - just looked in the player's handbook. Surprisingly, it's not mentioned there. I guess technically in 2nd edition you can use a sling one-handed due to the writers forgetting basic logic. Any GM with half a brain (such as mine back in the day) are likely to houserule it in though. That being said, this was changed after 2nd ed.

Nigga, its a sling. Its always "fired" one handed. Even loading it would not be particularly cumbersome with a shield on one arm and in fact I'm pretty sure thats how the romans did it. On the other hand, firing a bow - especially a longbow - with anything larger than a buckler mounted on the arm would be very challenging.

Turns out gygax and the other wargaming nerds before dnd was taken over by trannies and anime geeks, knew what they were doing more or less.