It's not about it being harder overall, but about the starting experience.

Now, since I haven't played it myself - I'm finding it hard to separate fact from fiction. Going by the official forums - a LOT of players are very upset with both the technical issues (many can't even boot the damn thing) - and the changes.

Based on your feedback, everything is just peachy.

What about the wolves/bears/basilisks and so on in the starter areas? Because if they're hand-placed and still present - then I guess it's less of an issue than it seemed to be.

Yes I know, but he's talking about: "Of course, I'm "elitist" and "sad" enough to actually enjoy a challenge now and then."

You'll get more challenges in EE than vanilla, unless you specifically make a strong party to counter certain fights.

PS. Oh, and remember to increase difficulty from normal to core, as I pointed out in my original post. I believe vanilla started out on core by default, so that could cause people to think it's easier than it really is. I really do consider this mandatory - BG1 and 2 has always been a breeze on normal. It's a 25% reduction to all damage taken + max hitpoint rolls + guaranteed scroll scribing if I remember correctly. That's pretty massive in the long run.

Every basilisk is hand placed, there are no random basilisks as far as I know. They're all present.

As for technical issues - I had a start up issue initially, but every issue I've had has been fixed in the two patches. I'm not sure what people are still having a hard time with, perhaps it's still the whole integrated graphics chip thing?

I have four PCs, three of which are running BG: EE at the moment, but I don't have one without a designated graphics card, so I can't verify that.

Im looking forward to play it, after a couple of patches. I want my moneys worth if Im going to pay 20$ for something I already own.

I have to say, the design decision to change spawns in the beginning were poorly thought out. I am not that fond of having my ass handed to me in games, but feeling vulnerable in the beginning chapter of BG was a central part of the experience.

You were afraid of a pack of wolves, You were afraid of anything that could hide in the wilderness.

It made it all the sweeter when you had grown and could pack a bit more punch.

They seem very intent on patching though, bit I cant find the above discussion anymore.

C

What I meant is that the starter experience in any classic D&D game (or most classic RPGs for that matter) is typically very hard - because you have few HPs and monsters tend to outnumber you. That means you have to be tactical and you get the full "growth" experience.

I'm not interested in changes that would result in an easier start but a harder mid-end game. I LIKE the hard start.

Also, I enjoy being powerful in the end-game, but that's another matter.

I'm pretty sure the original game's default difficulty was "normal" and that you had to manually increase it to "core" difficulty.

I'll know for sure tomorrow though. I'm going to install the original game and play them simultaneously so I can compare them better.

The guaranteed scroll scribing and max hitpoints on level ups was only in BG2.

Hmm, the starting thing might be an issue to some I suppose. I have to be perfectly honest: I didn't even notice it until I read about it in the forums.

Then again, I've played BG more than enough times for the start to not be challenging anymore. It hasn't been for years. I know where to pick up powerful stuff, so I'm running around in 2x ankheg armors within a few hours of starting and then basically breeze through anything until I hit the bandit camp -> cloakwood forest, at which point the spawning seems to be back to normal (at least 2x Wyvern and 4x Ethercap are still very much present, though they might appear less frequently, I haven't really counted).

Can we expect a review here at the Watch of this EE edition, and how it compares to the original?

I'll play through it two more times and update my impressions, and I'm more than willing to answer any questions or update the original post with any specific info people want, but writing a full blown review is quite a bit more time consuming.

Someone else might be doing it though for all I know. :)

Some of us (me), didn't fall on emotions. And won't buy EE version ever, no matter how blasphemic that sounded initially and still sounds.
I'll buy BG3 though. Which is planned to be planned (no, not mistake) only if they sell 200.000+ BG:EE copies.

Hopefully Maylander's review will be here soon as I want to read it, in fact can't wait to see any decent review that doesn't cover just bits and pieces and a couple of locations.

As far as I know, they'll do BG2: EE before even starting BG3 no matter how well BG: EE sells.

In BG2: EE I hope they bring in the new characters from EE (I assume they will) as they do fill some gaps in the BG2 roster, but the most important addition is some sort of thief character beyond Jan Jansen. Let's say a thief/fighter archer or perhaps a thief with a cool kit like assassin. Imoen works out fine for BG2 vanilla, but in ToB it's really nice to actually have a thief that's still gaining thief levels in order to get the extremely useful thief-only epic skills (use any item, time stop trap, spike trap or whatever it's called, etc).

Reviews can be interesting, but I'd probably prefer a less forgiving or biased person behind it. Maylander is a proud lover of all things Bioware - and strikes me as someone determined to like EE even before release - much like blatantninja, and it feels like he's shrugging off relatively serious issues.

But reviews are mostly a curiousity for me. I generally need to spend time with stuff myself - and there's no way I'm paying 20$ for something like this. I own several versions of both BGs already - and I'm not going to support efforts like this. I might pirate it down the line to see if I'm wrong about it - and then pony up the cash - but it better be damn good in that case.

How about a review from DeepO? He seems more balanced - even as a Bio fan :)

Get serious, Maylander doesn't work for IGN or Gamespot so he'll most definetly make an objective review. Forget the being lover prejudice, hell you may say I'm also in that group as I bought every single RPG with Bioware's mark on it.
DeepO, sure, I'd love to see his review too.

A review from you would be entertaining. It would be like listening to aliens rant on about things from Earth ;)

Maylander objective when it comes to Bioware? Haha, you've got to be kidding.

*kisses*

I'm not a good material for a reviewer:
- I can't stand bugs, especially those that can be fixed easily
- I despise quantity over quality
- I couldn't care less for iPhone/console games
- I can't be impressed with multiplayer in basically singleplayer games

All modern reviewers think differently. And not just reviewers… But you too.

And I'm not kidding about Maylander being objective. Give the man a chance.

I don't know, I think you could be an entertaining reviewer, I really do. Then again, I stopped expecting rational and objective reviewers with a good grasp on the history of gaming a very long time ago. So, I just use them as a bit of fun - nothing more.

But I do value comments from Watchers - because they're typically more insightful in terms of the RPG genre - and I know their preferences. So, I find feedback around here very useful.

If being a fan of BioWare makes someone biased, shouldn't they be biased against BG: EE considering it's someone else messing with BioWare's original work?

Anyway, I've bought every PC RPG they've made, and it's certainly no secret that I enjoy most of them, but that doesn't mean I have a hard time seeing that the ending of ME3 is a disgrace. When their work sucks, it sucks.

Still, this is all besides the point, as BG: EE wasn't even made by BioWare. Also, why are we even discussing this? I never said anything about writing a full blown review, I said the exact opposite - I'm more likely to update my impressions based on a few more times through the game.

There would have to be a fairly high demand for me to bother with an actual review instead of just simple impressions.

That being said, feel free to add topics or questions you would like me to discuss/answer when updating the main post.

Well, from my point of view - that would depend entirely on your intentions and how you treat the original work.

When I first heard about EE - I was very excited, because I thought they might do something really significant - and I thought they might be in it for something other than money.

Sadly, I've seen very little to think they really wanted to improve the game. Everything smacks of opportunism and wanting to do "just enough" to make it run on modern machines with minimal hassle - and adding "just enough" to warrant a higher price tag, without integrating it properly.

So, no, I don't think fans of Bioware would have a negative response. In fact, I think the entire EE project is based on the premise that fans of old-school Bioware would kill for an updated version - especially on the tablet platforms.

Still haven't experienced that :)

We're not really discussing it, are we? I'm just poking you for a bit of fun - based on joxer's request for a review.

Nah, I respect your opinion - and I can tell you're trying to be reasonable and objective about EE.

Don't write one on my account, as I'd have no need for it. But it could be interesting, all the same.

I would like some feedback on the new content that goes in-depth and objectively compares it with the older stuff.

Oh, and I'd also like to understand why it's a better experience by "quite a margin" than a fully modded BG with BG2 changes? I really don't understand what part of it makes it so much better?

Would you really? Seems you already have your mind made up that is an amateurish money grab.

Marylander has already stated what he thought was better and you dismissed him as a fanboi. ( and then took it back, kind of) even though he's the only one posting who's put in significant time with the game.

I posted in another thread why I thought it was better and worth the $20. I won't re-hash it here as I'm sure you value my opinion even less than you do Maylanders.

You support every negative comment and challenge every positive one. Hardly seems you could look at the game objectively.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If that's your perception of me, then wouldn't it be wiser to simply ignore me? I really don't have the stamina to try and correct your image that you seem to hold so dear. You're not even reading - you're just responding based on pre-conceived notions that you have no underpinning for. That's useless to me.

I value your opinion just as I value all opinions according to their level of insight. AFAIK, you're a reasonably informed gamer - so your opinion about games is valuable.