Yes I also disagree that there is a clash of style, at least so far as the portraits are concerned. The new one fits in perfectly.

The image is dark but it looks like he's going to be a heavy armor warrior type.

I brightened it up and it looks more like a mage to me, with possibly a staff behind his shoulder. He does have a scarred face though.

Oh, the bottom of the image was so dark that it looked like armor to me.

Could be a monk, perhaps? Or a... warlock... mh?

He's bald, notwithstanding. Please, make his hair the same color as his skin by deafult: don't make us ShadowKeep him just for the sake of visual consistency! Provided that ShadowKeeper will still work with BG:EE, that is, which I most dearly hope.

Or if they release an official version that doesn't look like it was designed for Windows 98. ;)

Some clarification of mod features might be appropriate here.

My previous arguments concerned Caruga's request to be able to manage mods within BGEE, on the grounds that it would involve considerable extra work by Overhaul. Bhryaen's suggestion about Overhaul creating equivalents of existing mods (as long as they were not copies, since that would breach copyright) should work better - assuming they were created using internal tools and stored as diff files or something equally simple. Overhaul could use Weidu instead but having that handled internally (i.e. providing checkboxes to enable/disable mods) would be tricky - they'd have to include code to parse the .debug files and respond "intelligently" to errors.

Trent...
...Basically there are two "recognized product classes" in the contract which is causing all the grief. There is the original game and there are expansion packs. We are restricted from modifying certain content in the main game.

The Tales of the Sword Coast expansion modified content in the main game (most notably the final battle) so perhaps you could use that example to argue yourselves more leeway?

Trent...
...We want to approach the mod creators and ask permission to include the most popular mods as optional content in the game. The legal requirements are pretty stiff though, as all Intellectual Property becomes property of Wizards of the Coast as the owners of Dungeons and Dragons....

I can't see any mod author agreeing to this clause - it would mean surrendering all rights to their creation and likely not being able to update it without WotC's permission. It could even require them to withdraw their existing work for BG1/2.

There are precedents for publishers including third-party content (with owners' permission) with their games (CDProjekt's The Witcher being a fairly recent example as the version 1.5 update included 4 fan-produced modules). Getting WotC to relax their requirements to allow this would seem the best course.

I think, at a certain point, the problem is less convincing them to relax their requirements, and more that it requires time, which takes hours away from development.

The new portrait is pretty good that it's not easily pigeonholed into a particular class- really could be a monk or warlock with the light clothing, but with the hint of shoulder armor could be a warrior type as well. Plus the stick on his back could be a mage's staff, archer's bow, monk's jo stick, or the handle of a long melee weapon perhaps. Looks quite innerestin though he competes with baldy, tattooed Minsc. I'm just disappointed that it doesn't look anything like Trent. I want my money back!

Andrea's point about consistency is good, but I really don't want Nat reworking everything to his style. I thought the goal was to work his style into the native BG style. If the original stone GUI doesn't look right anymore, this sounds like something was done wrong. That said, though I prefer the BG1 GUI exclusively over BG2's, the BG1 GUI is a bit on the bright side, so actually a darkening to make it kinder on the eyes might be better regardless...

I definitely support the paperdoll rework though. The BG2 look is already an oddity in the game, so it's hard to see how anything new would be worse, and if Nat remakes them so that they actually represent the races properly (including a beardless girl dwarf/ gnome since the beards did always seem to me to be a bug), this would at least be compensatory given that the animations aren't getting "fixed." It's arguable that the paperdoll system is broken.

Tanthalas...
I'm still hopeful that when BGEE2 is out too that Overhaul is going to let us do a mega-install that combines both games (similar to what BGT does). One big map showing BG1 and BG2 areas would be great.

I have the feeling that this is going to be one of the most often repeated requests that the dev team is going to hear when it's BG2EE time. They'll definitely have to address it openly at some point.

AstralWanderer...
Bhryaen's suggestion about Overhaul creating equivalents of existing mods (as long as they were not copies, since that would breach copyright) should work better... I can't see any mod author agreeing to... surrendering all rights to their creation and likely not being able to update it without WotC's permission. It could even require them to withdraw their existing work for BG1/2.

I'm getting concerned now actually that they're not going to do what I was suggesting and just work it in themselves, but rather attempt to get the modders (as uninvolved as so many are at this point) to just stuff their mods into BGEE wholesale. There are plenty of mods I only like for a single component- Item Revisions, for example, that adds new descriptions to items, changes all sorts of rules, etc., but to me is only good for the component that allows spell casting in armor with a failure chance depending on armor type. If the entire Item Rev mod goes in, that's a lot of extras even I don't want, encumbering the game unnecessaily (not to mention the conflicts). I'm assuming that logistical considerations alone will turn away from that possibility, but then I'm not sure where that leaves the process since writing the equivalent mod material into the game may take too much time, as Aosaw seems to be suggesting, but dumping mods in unselectively is also not feasible. This is also one reason why I'm looking forward to the BGEE Forum and modder invite- seems to be where these details can be worked out.

arcite...
I don't quite get this obsession with including BG Mods.... IMO most mods for BG aren't very good. Sure there are some nice tweaks, such as the paperdoll mod (switching the horrible BGII paperdolls with BGI paperdolls), and there are some useful tweaking mods, however the large quest mods are on average, BAD.

It's as much an obsession as others have with other initiatives that have been introduced and discussed for implementation in BGEE. I agree about most mods though since most are either redundant given a better version out there of the equivalent tweak or are quest and NPC mods which, although nice projects, are not really a consideration. The ones I'm interested in are the tweak mods, particularly the AI enhancements but also a lot of the ones that are standard fare for mod-users, the ones most players would use if they were already available in-game. And although I may be just one voice among a group predominantly mod-savvy already, I can guarantee that a new wave of players will be wanting access to them and be finding them as difficult as I have to sort out among the sea of mods available, to extract properly, to put in proper order, to install, and, alas, to troubleshoot. Better to preempt that frustration with a quality, properly functioning, intuitively coded, in-built Advanced Options system available on vanilla game installation at the character creation screen (or wherever it's most practicable), albeit only being able to do so much in the development time remaining...

If the entire Item Rev mod goes in, that's a lot of extras even I don't want, encumbering the game unnecessaily (not to mention the conflicts).

Well, they say that we can play BGEE with 0 new content if we want to, so I'm guessing than this also applies to any mod content. I think we'll be able to only use some components individually (many mods allow us to install each component individually as you have mentioned already), it wouldn't make sense to remove this option. The solution for mod content will be interesting to see.

Is this an appropriate time to say 'wood from the trees'?

Over 900 posts in this thread! Let's try and get it to over 9000.

Is this an appropriate time to say 'wood from the trees'?

No kidding, trying to improve BG after all this time without breaking the game is like putting lightning in a bottle. The less new stuff there is, the less chance there is for something to go wrong. The cosmetic stuff alone is more than enough to make it a worthy $10 iPad download. Redo the interface, increase resolution, tweak animations and paper dolls ect... No need to reinvent the wheel with this one :)

I kind of agree, actually. I'd rather the gameplay be the same and the graphics get a make-over, rather than the other way around.

I agree too. Even the fact that the code is being "cleaned" up from all the old junk, so that the game can run smoother, is alone in itself a reason for me to be happy and to buy the new one.

I have a technical question now:
The vanilla game has a framerate limit of 30fps. And if you wanna increase it to 60fps, so that it matches with the screen framerate (60Hz), the game SPEED also becomes faster.
So, is it possible to implement the feature in BGEE that the game can run with 60Hz and with VSync active (or whatever screen Hz you have) WITHOUT gettting the game speed faster?

Lol, when I said wood from the trees I meant people are getting very... 'excited' about the position of mods in the enhanced edition. Ultimately there is a great deal being enhanced, ui, engine, music, as well as two whole new adventures (x+y), it's easy to lose sight of that when we get swallowed up in nitpicking details (tab key anyone?).

I was in no way suggesting that they should be minimalistic. Remember, a few months ago there wasn't even a flicker of life in this. Now there is a spark, the EE and the whole future of the BG style RPG is riding on it.

We might now be looking at a number of EEs as well as BG3 and future isometric tactical party-based RPGs. That won't happen if the BG:EE is just a re-packaged BG.

Trent I believe is well aware of that and he has clearly been pushing to make this EE something special. However some forumers believe that minimalism is the way to go, maybe that will give us a nice BG experience, but it wont be anything more than that.

To be honest, I would have been fine with extensive bugfixing, code-cleansing and audio-visual enhancements as well. Porting BG to the latest ToB engine so that all classes, kits and features are available from the start would have been just a (very) welcome bonus.

That being said, I do appreciate the ninja-work Cameron has been doing on the code, as a good code is a lean code. It makes things run smoother (begone, slowdowns!), minimizes the chances of bugs arising, and likely fixes a plethora of existing ones. I also appreciate the porting of audio to OpenAL and video to OpenGL, with the addition of the zoom feature to go with native support for widescreen resolutions.

New contents are welcome, though of course I'll only judge them upon playing them. For now, all I can say is that the need for engine and cosmetic enhancements was more deeply felt on my part than the need for additional contents.

On a completely unrelated note, don't forget to add a CD with the updated soundtrack in the boxed edition of BG:EE. You wouldn't want us to miss those brand new Sam Hulick tracks when we listen to our favorite games' music, would you? If you want it to be a pearl, avoid overcompression and make it a dynamic, audiophile-grade master (yes, I'm an audiophile and I'm quite anal about sound quality) ;-)

You know what else would be cool? Statuettes. Not action figures, mind you: more like miniatures, but a little bigger than the average Ral Partha or Citadel minature. Lead, detailed, colored. One per box, portraying a random game character. Those who wanted to collect them all would have to buy multiple copies of the boxed set. Everyone else would settle for the one they got, safe in the knowledge that it was an exclusive, collectible, limited edition piece.

Ultimately there is a great deal being enhanced, ui, engine, music, as well as two whole new adventures (x+y), it's easy to lose sight of that when we get swallowed up in nitpicking details (tab key anyone?).

Are you serious? I can't believe anyone would waste their time talking about that.

HeroicSpur...
Lol, when I said wood from the trees I meant people are getting very... 'excited' about the position of mods in the enhanced edition.

And here I'd thought it was a more high brow misstatement of seeing the forest for the trees. So a dirty joke against those like yourself who would prefer to see modded content in BGEE, eh? Are you trying to cockblock discussion of mods and TAB? You're as bad as Bioware!

Yes I am. I am a cockblocker Bhryaen -you have exposed me.

The point is that it's easy to lose sight of what we actually know. We know mods will be implemented in some form or other, we know the game will not be completely incompatible with existing mods, and we know that Trent plans to introduce a more coherent system for implenting them post ship. Given there are outstanding issues, but there's a lot more here than just those. That's not to say the trees aren't worth inspecting, but remember there's a forest out there.

@Caruga: you would be amazed at what some people waste their time talking about.

http://forum.baldursgate.com

Ah sh*t. First we had to transfer all the arguments/ideas from this thread to the reddit. Now we may have to transfer all the suggestions/requests to the forum.

Er.

I created an account over there, but I can't post or change my avatar. Is there something else I need to do?

If you just created an account I think you need to wait for clearance by an administrator to be able to post.

Ah, yes, that's it - my role is "Applicant".

Liking the site's layout, though! Very sleek.

Whoa. New forums huh? I signed up, but yes seems like it might just be in a beta stage forum?

Or is this a VIP forum. =]

Interesting. Some new artwork up on the profile page... Looks like a cathedral / temple structure? For a moment I almost though Temple of Elemental evil (but that is greyhawk, different setting?).

And who are these two groups in battle... The one with the mace might be a clerical faction and in the midground... is that knight wielding a 2H Maul / mace?!

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll204/Wonderboy2402/collage.jpg

And not sure if someone isolated the mysterious monk / warrior portrait. But I found a clear picture here.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll204/Wonderboy2402/pBR7VI8RV1RLS.jpg

Tentacle stylized facial tattoos. Red garb / armor shoulder pads. A staff perhaps on his back?

I smell a Spellfire Adept!

That portrait is pretty cool. However, I think it would have been better if Nat had implemented the same coloring style as Mike Sass had used with the original portraits, for the sake of consistency. It would have fit in more seamlessly. Still great art, nevertheless.

See you on the new forum, guys ;-)

Folks,
BGEE needs your feedback :)
I have posted a request Use improvements from “Spell Revisions” at Reddit.
And Cameron has asked:

MrManlyMan1
'Spell Revisions' is quite the mod. Would we want this added as 'core' changes?

Need your feedback on this one..
Personally I think that fixes from this mod should be implemented as a “core” changes as it fixes many bugs that are present in BG’s spells, balance overpowered spells (Horrid Wilting), improves some useless spells and the one that became useless at higher levels..

Honestly, I would rather see all spells behave faithfully to their P&P description than to have any user-created fix applied to developer-created house-rules. But that's just me, the rules-laywer :-)