Baldur's Gate Beamdog's Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 Enhanced Editions

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The only fucking point I'm trying to make is that the Enhanced Edition isn't that bad, and is perfectly viable for a first play through. If no one disagrees with that, than there is no argument. Lambchop19 Do you disagree with this statement?

That's not at all the only point you tried to make.

You keep doing this. You make some dumb argument and then back off and try to shift the goal posts and re-qualify it once you get called on it.

"Oh, no I was just talking about the quality of the game itself" after arguing for pages about all the newbies the EE brought in.

"bugs? what bugs? I never encountered a bug." and then you shift to "I never said there weren't any bugs there, gosh, but oh, didn't the originals have bugs?"

It's really lame and no one's buying it.

Just like no one is going to buy this attempt to force an agreement out of me by backing off all your other points and trying to make a new, less offensive one and claiming this was your point all along.

It's moot recommending whether or not to play the EE's on a first run. You'll have to buy them anyway.

But, in my opinion, it's better to patch/mod the originals to widescreen and play them first if at all possible.

There's no guarantee the EE's will even work on your PC, so I can't in good conscience recommend them, to say nothing of their dumb added content.

 

[Tigranes]

The only fucking point I'm trying to make is that the Enhanced Edition isn't that bad, and is perfectly viable for a first play through. If no one disagrees with that, than there is no argument. Lambchop19 Do you disagree with this statement?

It's perfectly viable, but I would always recommend just playing the originals. Cheaper, and superior.

(Usually, you would say the exact opposite: e.g. it's perfectly viable to play Gothic 3 vanilla, but I would always recommend people use the Community Patch. The very fact that the EE is not an automatic recommendation tells you a lot about what kind of product it is.)

 

[Strange Fellow]

The argument in favour of the EEs seems to be that they managed to avoid fucking up the original games so thoroughly as to render them unplayable. It's "viable" to play them. Good job.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The EEs are fine for a first playthrough, but only for frauds who want to pretend they've played the games. If you've only played the EEs, you've never played BG1 and BG2.

I'd amend this to say you've never played BG1 at least. BG1 had its own unique art design and gameplay that Beamdog completely threw out the window. I personally like playing with BGT/EET, but I know it isn't the real BG1.

edit: Oh, and I completely forgot to mention all the terrible new cartoony cutscenes they made to replace the in game's original CGI cutscenes.



The cutscene at the end (comparison timestamped 10:11) was especially offensive in that it didn't fly up and show all the other Bhaalspawn before turning downward. It looks like they were going to, but then just fades to the camera panning down awkwardly. Sad.

So yeah, I can't recommend it for a first run at all. You're just not really playing BG.

 

[ItsChon]

"Oh, no I was just talking about the quality of the game itself" after arguing for pages about all the newbies the EE brought in.

The point of bringing up the newbies the EE brought in was to defend the concept of releasing an EE.

"bugs? what bugs? I never encountered a bug." and then you shift to "I never said there weren't any bugs there, gosh, but oh, didn't the originals have bugs?"

It's really lame and no one's buying it.

The first statement was hyperbolic and an expression of my distaste at the exaggeration that BG:EE is so buggy it's unplayable. The second statement was me clarifying what I thought on the actual issue of bugs and pointing out that because you don't criticize the original for having bugs, it's not fair to criticize the EE for having bugs.

Just like no one is going to buy this attempt to force an agreement out of me by backing off all your other points and trying to make a new, less offensive one and claiming this was your point all along.

The first post I made.

PS:T EE is an amazing EE. As for the others, Curratum is absolutely right. The autism that Codexers exhibit when it comes to shit as benign as UI and animation changes is so never ceases to amaze me. The UI looks fine to me and the in game UI is preferable to the original versions, and who the fuck gives a shit about some minor animations? The upgrades to the resolution, the in game UI, and the QoL updates are worth paying an extra 5-10 bucks over the original version

How is this an attempt on backing off my other points. I was specifically referring to the EE as a direct upgrade over the original game. As for my other points, I haven't changed what I said regarding the additional content either. You're just in capable of following the follow of a conversation. When I say "even if I was to admit" that doesn't mean I'm admitting anything, it just means that we were getting stuck up arguing a point that doesn't really have any bearing on my original statement.

There's no guarantee the EE's will even work on your PC

And there's a guarantee that the original will work on your PC? This is a risk for every consumer.

The argument in favour of the EEs seems to be that they didn't break the original games so thoroughly as to render them unplayable. It's "viable" to play them. Good job.

The EE is better than the original game without mods. The argument in favor of the EEs is that they're a far more accessible and improved version of the original game without having to go through the hassle of installing mods. They also feature a variety of QoL improvements that aren't available even in the modded versions of the game.

It's perfectly viable, but I would always recommend just playing the originals. Cheaper, and superior.

If you're claiming that the original, unmodded BG is superior to the EE, than we have a fundamental difference in how we see things. The UI, graphics, and QoL improvements are all superior to the original BG.

 

[Strange Fellow]

If people who lack the intelligence and/or patience to install a widescreen mod are the great white hope for the future of CRPGs, then let it die, I say.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The point of bringing up the newbies the EE brought in was to defend the concept of releasing an EE.

No shit. Which isn't you just saying it's fine for a single playthough (which you claimed was the only point you were trying to make in your last post) and it isn't you just talking about the quality of the game itself as you previously claimed.

The first statement was hyperbolic and an expression of my distaste at the exaggeration that BG:EE is so buggy it's unplayable. The second statement was me clarifying what I thought on the actual issue of bugs and pointing out that because you don't criticize the original for having bugs, it's not fair to criticize the EE for having bugs.

Dance, bugman, dance.

The first post I made.

I came in in the middle of the argument. You didn't just make that post or just that argument.

And besides:

PS:T EE is an amazing EE. As for the others, Curratum is absolutely right. The autism that Codexers exhibit when it comes to shit as benign as UI and animation changes is so never ceases to amaze me. The UI looks fine to me and the in game UI is preferable to the original versions, and who the fuck gives a shit about some minor animations? The upgrades to the resolution, the in game UI, and the QoL updates are worth paying an extra 5-10 bucks over the original version

This wasn't at all you simply saying that the game is "viable". You're specifically mischaracterizing our arguments and calling us autistic. You're also only mentioning the positives about the game and not the negatives. As if the only difference is the QoL upgrades etc. And as I'm sure others have pointed out to you, the resolution upgrades have existed for free for a long time. The UI is worse, not better.

I do like the QoL upgrades (that have been added over time, I'll add), but it's arguable whether or not they are worth paying for and certainly not worth missing the original game.

How is this an attempt on backing off my other points.

The only fucking point I'm trying to make

Make a list of all the points you tried to make in this thread. Notice how there are more than one of them? Work it out.

You're just in capable of following the follow of a conversation.

And there's a guarantee that the original will work on your PC? This is a risk for every consumer.

No, I know with reasonable certainly that Black Isle didn't come back from the dead and release a patch that broke the game. So I can recommend the original based on 20 years of playing it on different systems. I can't say the same with Beamderp. Especially since the latest patch is very new.

The EE is better than the original game without mods.

It's different, but different isn't better.

Play the real BG1 someday.

If you're claiming that the original, unmodded BG is superior to the EE, than we have a fundamental difference in how we see things. The UI, graphics, and QoL improvements are all superior to the original BG.

Nope. I've explained at length several times how the UI isn't. Others have explained about graphics and I have explained about the cutscenes.

I do agree that the QoL improvements are nice, but ultimately unneeded and again, not worth missing out on a true experience of the game.

 

[ItsChon]

No shit. Which isn't you just saying it's fine for a single playthough (which you claimed was the only point you were trying to make in your last post) and it isn't you just talking about the quality of the game itself as you previously claimed.

We got side tracked and ended up discussing two different topics. We've been talking about this shit for pages now, forgive me if some points got muddled. The original point I was making was its viability as a game for a playthrough. The post you quoted is another a claim regarding whether or not BG:EE's release ended up being a good thing or not.

I came in in the middle of the argument. You didn't just make that post or just that argument.

If you come into the middle of an argument, I expect you to follow along with the narrative. If someone came into the middle of this argument, I'm not going to go back and repost all the other points I'd made prior to them joining the argument. This is an excuse.

This wasn't at all you simply saying that the game is "viable".

Viable, good, great, preferable, stop playing with semantics; you know exactly what I mean.

You're also only mentioning the positives about the game and not the negatives.

You said the negatives are the bugs, the UI, and the added content. Two of those three negatives also apply to the original game, and I think the added content isn't really that bad. You're acting like I'm purposely trying to be disingenuous. My original post and point is only several sentences long. I wasn't trying to write out a several paragraph essay on all the pros and cons of the EE and why it's a good game/preferable to the original BG.

No, I know with reasonable certainly that Black Isle didn't come back from the dead and release a patch that broke the game. So I can recommend the original based on 20 years of playing it on different systems. I can't say the same with Beamderp. Especially since the latest patch is very new.

You can always install a patch that works.

Nope. I've explained at length several times how the UI isn't. Others have explained about graphical animations and I have explained about the cutscenes.

I do agree that the QoL improvements are nice, but ultimately unneeded.

My question was towards Tigranes not you, as he is the one who made the claim. Must've got confused.

 

[Tigranes]

If you're claiming that the original, unmodded BG is superior to the EE, than we have a fundamental difference in how we see things. The UI, graphics, and QoL improvements are all superior to the original BG.

I guess we do, dude who never played the originals.

 

[ItsChon]

I guess we do, dude who never played the originals.

I did play them; I mentioned it earlier in the thread. I just bounced off them when I was younger because the graphics and UI were too bad to deal with at the age of 14.

 

[aweigh]

imagine stanning for Beamdog

LOL

 

[ItsChon]

imagine stanning for Beamdog

LOL

I just don't like people pretending that the medium in which I first experienced BG is absolute shit and 10x worse than the original game in which most people on this forum experienced it. I'm not defending Beamdog at all.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

We got side tracked and ended up discussing two different topics. We've been talking about this shit for pages now, forgive me if some points got muddled. The original point I was making was its viability as a game for a playthrough.

Well, the one you just quoted isn't about that, so I'm not sure which "original" you're talking about.

If you come into the middle of an argument, I expect you to follow along with the narrative.

I did. And it was about more than viability.

But if you're making an argument, you should also be expected to follow along, yet you seem to have a problem with that.

This is an excuse.

The only one making excuses here is you.

I explained clearly in that post that you were making more than one point and I personally argued more than one point with you.

Viable, good, great, preferable, stop playing with semantics; you know exactly what I mean.

Viable and preferable have completely different meanings. Invest in a dictionary or perhaps a neurologist.

You said the negatives are the bugs, the UI, and the added content. Two of those three negatives also apply to the original game

No, as they are new and different bugs, some of which are also being actively introduced as they patch the game. I've written this several times.

And the UI was fixable with a free mod, but wasn't needed Again, refer to my previous statement on why modded BG is comparable to unmodded EE. The mods existed before EE and EE used them.

The UI also wasn't messed up in the same ways as EE. It was mostly resolution.

You're acting like I'm purposely trying to be disingenuous.

You are, but mainly in the way you are arguing. I'm fully prepared to accept that some of your mistakes are just ignorance or carelessness on your part.

You know you're losing the argument and you're squirming around, trying to find a way out, but it's really obvious and you should probably just admit you were wrong at this point.

My original post and point is only several sentences long. I wasn't trying to write out a several paragraph essay on all the pros and cons of the EE and why it's a good game/preferable to the original BG.

So you confess you omitted these details, but are saying it wasn't deliberate deception, just laziness. Ok.

You can always install a patch that works.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. How do you know it will work? These Beamturd patches are always an unknown. Is there some other patch source?

My question was towards Tigranes not you, as he is the one who made the claim. Must've got confused.

I wasn't confused. Nothing prevents me from answering the question as well.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I just don't like people pretending that the medium in which I first experienced BG is absolute shit and 10x worse than the original game in which most people on this forum experienced it. I'm not defending Beamdog at all.

Just their products.

As to the first part though, don't you know where you are?

"Odds are, something you like very much sucks. Why? Because this is the RPG Codex."

 

[Grunker]

EEs hardly changed the graphics at all, what are you blathering about

 

[Parabalus]

I get not wanting to give Beamdog money, but raving that the EEs are a garbage inferior version is really tryhard.

 

[Citizen]

I just don't like people pretending that the medium in which I first experienced BG is absolute shit and 10x worse than the original game in which most people on this forum experienced it. I'm not defending Beamdog at all.

I never pretend on the internet.

Yes, you played an inferior version of a good game. It's not 10 times worse, but it is worse. Even if it's just 1.0000000000001 times worse, what's the point of playing it, if there's a version that is a bit better? And there's a better version.

As for mods and QoL improvements - most of them aren't even needed. I play BG2 with just stratagems for less dumb AI and bigger item stacks and BG1 without mods at all. I don't use widescreen - 4:3 image on my 16:9 monitor today is two times bigger than it was on my old 4:3 CRT and I'm ok with black stripes on the sides. Still, when I played iwd2 on my laptop I used widescreen mod and it worked and looked good.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I get not wanting to give Beamdog money, but raving that the EEs are a garbage inferior version is really tryhard.

They're inferior versions of ridiculously overrated games.

 

[Lacrymas]

A case can be made that BG1:EE is not the same game and it can't be the same. Using the BG2 engine brings about many changes that some people will argue dilute the game and trivialize some of the content. And it is indeed easier if played without mods. There's no reason not to get SCS, though.

 

[Chippy]

There's a mod - on Spellhold Sudios I think - that I installed that re-introduces all the original cutscenes. Don't know if the modder stretched the resolution or what, but I much prefered looking at them than the shit Beamdog produced. They managed to get some original, 'lost' movies in there as well.

 

[Grunker]

I get not wanting to give Beamdog money, but raving that the EEs are a garbage inferior version is really tryhard.

They kindda are in my opinion (and I say this as someone who uses EET and thus the EEs). They split the mod community and cost a 3-4 year drudge through moving mods over and developing EET, the UI is vastly less aesthetically pleasing and they caused the original versions to be taken offline from most shops.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

EEs hardly changed the graphics at all, what are you blathering about

Really? So BGEE uses the same sprites as BG1? Same spell effects? Same cutscenes?

No. The sprites are BG2 sprites, the spell effects are BG2 spell effects (note the fireball).

It's close, sure, but it's not the same. Though the cutscenes are by far the worst and most garish change.

There's a mod - on Spellhold Sudios I think - that I installed that re-introduces all the original cutscenes.

Isn't one of the selling points of the EE that we don't have to mess with those scary "RAR files"?

I'm using a similar mod right now and I'm quite grateful for it. Undoing Beamderp's work is generally p incline.

 

[Chippy]

True that. Not only did they decline the quality of the movies, but if I remember correctly didn't even bother to do the same number as Bioware. They didn't do Beregost, clipped Nashkel and missed the wyvern in the Cloakwood. Memories a bit hazy as my single playthrough was pretty forgettable.

 

[Grunker]

EEs hardly changed the graphics at all, what are you blathering about

Really? So BGEE uses the same sprites as BG1? Same spell effects? Same cutscenes?

No. The sprites are BG2 sprites, the spell effects are BG2 spell effects (note the fireball).

It's close, sure, but it's not the same. Though the cutscenes are by far the worst and most garish change.

I was responding to the claim that the EEs "improved the graphics." They didn't change them. The sprites and spell effects weren't changed in the EEs. What you're refering to only changes BG1 and that wasn't Beamdog updating the graphics, it was a result of using the ToB engine for the game.

 

[existential_vacuum]

Nah, EEs are perfectly fine. Look, they even have properly functioning journal UI !