Baldur's Gate - EE Interview @ Neogamr

Not too interested at all…. 1. I don't have iPad and I don't plan to get one 2. I enjoyed BG series as it is, so I don't find all these minor "improvements" all that exciting (especially when we aren't sure of existing mod compatibility with EE version) 3. I don't want BG3.

To tell the truth, I think even in the late 90s the type of game Baldurs Gate and PLanetscape TOrment are was already outdated. This sort of game only worked until '95 before the PSX and N64 and 3D graphics took over everyone's minds. I dont even know how the company (BLack Isle) that made these games even justified them to a publisher especially since it only targeted one platform. I mean besides these games what other mainstream games came out after '95 that played like Baldurs Gate or Jeff Vogel games? I really dont know how Black ISle even afforded to make these games or wanted to to tell the truth back then. I mean it was all about Final Fantasy 7 and Diablo back then.

Originally Posted by booboo
Its somewhat disappointing to hear that have none of the original assets (how did that happen)? I understand redoing ll the background would be impossible, but I do think they could remodel the avatars and beasts at least (well, I hoped). That said, there are some really good algorithms for up scaling and de-pixelzing pixel art - esp http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/…kopf/pixelart/
This may work well for there low-res pixel avatar frames. But they need more sprite frames per, since the current animations are really poor.

That looks pretty good. Is that an application you can download?

Originally Posted by purpleblob
3. I don't want BG3.

Given your love of BG2, why not?

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Given your love of BG2, why not?

Probably for the same reason as me. She doesn't want a sequel to a 12-year old game that won't live up to expectations.

Fair enough. I don't want a BG3 that continues the story line, but I would love another IE game.

Porting it to OpenGL is basically a kind of "jailbreak" from DirectX. I'm looking forward to that.
It could mean that the Ininity Engine games might truly become "Classics" one day, in the sense that they can be played on Emulators one day in the distant future (which won't be possible with any other game, simply because so far no "DirectX-Emultors" exist).
This could be saving these games from the "Great Forgetting" (of games) which I predict will take place at one point in the distant future because of he inability of future systems to emulate earlier versions of DirectX.
So, porting everything to OpenGL is imho a far greater step into the future than most of you realize.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Given your love of BG2, why not?

What JDR13 said

Originally Posted by AppleIntimidation
To tell the truth, I think even in the late 90s the type of game Baldurs Gate and PLanetscape TOrment are was already outdated. This sort of game only worked until '95 before the PSX and N64 and 3D graphics took over everyone's minds. I dont even know how the company (BLack Isle) that made these games even justified them to a publisher especially since it only targeted one platform. I mean besides these games what other mainstream games came out after '95 that played like Baldurs Gate or Jeff Vogel games? I really dont know how Black ISle even afforded to make these games or wanted to to tell the truth back then. I mean it was all about Final Fantasy 7 and Diablo back then.

Back in the day (from 1998 to 2002) PC platform was in its golden age. So, many games were making for the PC first and (in many case) only. Consoles had different kind of games, mostly because of their Japanese developer dominance. Unlike today most Western developers prefered PC for their lead platform.

As for the graphics, true 3D revolution came also with the PC in 1998 with games like Quake and 3dfx cards. Smooth textures, special effects and then H&L.

Baldur's Gate was released in 1998 and Planescape Torment 1999. When PsT was released, Quake 3 was the new king in 3d gaming. Back then prerendered backgrounds was way over than 3d, because real time rendering couldn't cope with prerendering. Only with the new improvements (like bump mapping, normal mapping, parallax mapping, shaders, etc) around 2006, real time rendering reached prerendering level. So, in those days there's a large market enough for these PC only games.

Also, Ps:T's backgrounds not only consist of prerendered graphics, but a hand drawn touch on top of that. So, the result is the graphics that unique. You can't do that even today with realtime 3d.

Originally Posted by Gokyabgu
Also, Ps:T's backgrounds not only consist of prerendered graphics, but a hand drawn touch on top of that. So, the result is the graphics that unique. You can't do that even today with realtime 3d.

I find older games with a "hand drawn touch" have aged far better than any of the older games that had "cutting edge graphics" for their time.

Unquestionably. IE games still look very nice but early 3D like Anachronox is horrible.

The negativity here is consistent and always humorous to me. Here's the way I see this:

1. It will never be 1998 again
2. There's a large group of people younger than us, or only turning to gaming recently
3. Tablets and portable devices are becoming more and more powerful and ubiquitous
3a. This doesn't mean you ever need to touch one
4. Bringing a game like BG to the iPad and to a larger audience in general is a good thing, as games will only be produced if there's a group of paying customers who want them

I get it, you played these games already. But millions of others haven't. Why are so many people here so grumpy about this? No one will force you to buy the game again, and hopefully more D&D (or D20 style) games will be made. I'm pretty sure the immense success of Skyrim, for example, will encourage other companies to create similar games. This is all a good thing.

And I urge everyone to read again my point #1 above.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Unquestionably. IE games still look very nice but early 3D like Anachronox is horrible.

Yes. The makers of the well-known adventure game called "Simon the Sorcerer" never found publishers willing to publish their third game - unless they made it 3D.

Needless to say that this published 3D version of it looks imho horrible.

Originally Posted by Ovenall

1. It will never be 1998 again

Links to prove this or your lying!

Originally Posted by Ovenall
The negativity here is consistent and always humorous to me. Here's the way I see this:

1. It will never be 1998 again
2. There's a large group of people younger than us, or only turning to gaming recently
3. Tablets and portable devices are becoming more and more powerful and ubiquitous
3a. This doesn't mean you ever need to touch one
4. Bringing a game like BG to the iPad and to a larger audience in general is a good thing, as games will only be produced if there's a group of paying customers who want them

I get it, you played these games already. But millions of others haven't. Why are so many people here so grumpy about this? No one will force you to buy the game again, and hopefully more D&D (or D20 style) games will be made. I'm pretty sure the immense success of Skyrim, for example, will encourage other companies to create similar games. This is all a good thing.

And I urge everyone to read again my point #1 above.

My answer: I don't want BG3 - especially because there is a good chance it won't live up to expectation.

Another reason - I don't see how BG series will appeal to younger generation who are used to 3D movie like graphics and dumbed down combat system. How about drop the whole thing and let legend sleep in peace? That's my opinion.

Originally Posted by AppleIntimidation
I dont even know how the company (BLack Isle) that made these games even justified them to a publisher especially since it only targeted one platform.

Note: BG was made by BioWare, not Black Isle (it was published by Interplay/Black Isle). The extremely short version is that BioWare was working on the Infinity Engine for a strategy game when Interplay/Black Isle came along and said "yo guys why don't we get together and make an RPG out of this stuff" and BioWare said "yeah why not actually". OK. That was really short .

Convincing Interplay to fund the project (if they needed any convincing at all) must have been pretty easy. Compared to the hardcore RPGs of the early to mid 90s (Wizardry, Might & Magic, Ultima, Gold Box, Realms of Arkania, the Krondor games et al.) BioWare/Black Isle/Interplay wanted to drag the RPG genre and specifically AD&D CRPGing out of its nerd corner and into the mainstream by making commercially viable, visually pleasing and accessible 2D games without the back-then usual spreadsheet overkill but with ease-of-use and simplistic point & click gameplay like Diablo or strategy games.
Given the millions of copies of BG that were sold I guess you could say that they did not exactly fail.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Unquestionably. IE games still look very nice but early 3D like Anachronox is horrible.

Heh, it depends. I still like how Ultima Underworld looks.

To all you guys thinking a 10" display won't do Baldur's gate justice or feel crammed. Would you guys be willing to get this tablet if Baldur's gate is available on it?:
http://www.droid-life.com/2012/04/10…ing-this-june/

And here is another question. Would you carry that big boy to show noff at Starbucks?