Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition

[Hiro Protagonist II]

It makes perfect sense, the original bg-bg2 were a coding disaster that miraculously worked. They've had to go back and rewrite major sections of the code, which due to poor documentation and mind-boggling hardcoding breaks things elsewhere.

 

You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding (coding disaster as you put it), but hey. it somehow how miraculously worked. Must be special programming magic. Also, as a few have pointed out, they have some of the original team members working on the EE's.

 

You should have a minimum base line (original game) and work up from there. At the moment, the EE's don't even meet the base line in various ways due to introduced bugs.

[rjshae]

Agreed. I'm sure many a coder has wanted to go back and improve/rework/cleanup their code base late in the development cycle, but were unable to do so; I know I have. The need to port the code to tablets provided just such an opportunity. I don't see any reason to think ill of the coders for doing so.

[213374U]

 

It makes perfect sense, the original bg-bg2 were a coding disaster that miraculously worked. They've had to go back and rewrite major sections of the code, which due to poor documentation and mind-boggling hardcoding breaks things elsewhere.

 

You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding (coding disaster as you put it), but hey. it somehow how miraculously worked. Must be special programming magic. Also, as a few have pointed out, they have some of the original team members working on the EE's.

 

Without actually looking at the code it's impossible to tell how easy or hard it is to work with, if it was well designed, organized, optimized, clearly written, etc. You can have a piece of code that mostly works but it's a nightmare to debug for anyone but the author (and even so...). Bad QA is still bad QA, however, and there's no excuse for that.

[Gromnir]

 

It makes perfect sense, the original bg-bg2 were a coding disaster that miraculously worked. They've had to go back and rewrite major sections of the code, which due to poor documentation and mind-boggling hardcoding breaks things elsewhere.

 

You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding (coding disaster as you put it), but hey. it somehow how miraculously worked. Must be special programming magic. Also, as a few have pointed out, they have some of the original team members working on the EE's.

 

You should have a minimum base line (original game) and work up from there. At the moment, the EE's don't even meet the base line in various ways due to introduced bugs.

 

well, to be fair, if we take hiro post as TRUTH, then obsidian/black isle folks has some explaining to do.  more than once the black isle developers observed just how difficult it were to work with the infinity engine. bio knew how and why things worked, but obsidian were not part o' the engine building process.  the thing that bothered us is that black isle folks were still using that excuse while working 'pon iwd2. 

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

well, to be fair, if we take hiro post as TRUTH, then obsidian/black isle folks has some explaining to do.  more than once the black isle developers observed just how difficult it were to work with the infinity engine. bio knew how and why things worked, but obsidian were not part o' the engine building process.  the thing that bothered us is that black isle folks were still using that excuse while working 'pon iwd2. 

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

And what do the BIS developers need to explain with PST and the IWD games? Do they not work? And BIS were not enhancing already established games.

 

You yourself just said Bio knew how and why things worked. If we take Gromnir's post to be TRUTH. Since Overhaul already have some of the original Bio team members, then they should know how and why things worked! Thanks Gromnir, you just highlighted my point.

 

Also, this has nothing to do with BIS. Nice red herring as always.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Gromnir]

 

well, to be fair, if we take hiro post as TRUTH, then obsidian/black isle folks has some explaining to do.  more than once the black isle developers observed just how difficult it were to work with the infinity engine. bio knew how and why things worked, but obsidian were not part o' the engine building process.  the thing that bothered us is that black isle folks were still using that excuse while working 'pon iwd2. 

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

And what do the BIS developers need to explain with PST and the IWD games? Do they not work? And BIS were not enhancing already established games.

 

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect. heck, much o' obsidian/black isle's reputation for releasing buggy games were blamed on bio as their game catalog were, for a time, almost entirely ie and aurora games. 'course obsidian has now released a bunch o' near unplayable bug hunts that had no bio connection, so that excuse is gone, yes? regardless. you gotta very short memory if you don't recall the multitudes o' folks complaining 'bout unplayable ps:t, iwd, and iwd2.

 

oh, and yes, the black isle folks were indeed enhancing the ie engine with every release. 

 

seriously.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect. heck, much o' obsidian/black isle's reputation for releasing buggy games were blamed on bio as their game catalog were, for a time, almost entirely ie and aurora games. 'course obsidian has now released a bunch o' near unplayable bug hunts that had no bio connection, so that excuse is gone, yes? regardless. you gotta very short memory if you don't recall the multitudes o' folks complaining 'bout unplayable ps:t, iwd, and iwd2.

 

 

seriously.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Gromnir, nice trolling. This has nothing to do with BIS. It has to do with Overhaul and the Enhanced Editions. But keep on trolling!

[Gromnir]

...

 

you made claims suggesting that nep were ignorant. Gromnir noted that the black isle folks were not only running into problems with their enhancement efforts, but they blamed some o' their difficulties on bioware's engines. is the black isle folks also ignorant? is not trolling to wish for a level playing field where bio and obsidian and overhaul all get treated same.  in point o' fact, we would consider the person who is trying to be selective critical (as 'posed to fair) to be the troll. so, congratulations on illustrating that point for us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

...

 

you made claims suggesting that nep were ignorant. Gromnir noted that the black isle folks were not only running into problems with their enhancement efforts, but they blamed some o' their difficulties on bioware's engines. is the black isle folks also ignorant? is not trolling to wish for a level playing field where bio and obsidian and overhaul all get treated same.  in point o' fact, we would consider the person who is trying to be selective critical (as 'posed to fair) to be the troll. so, congratulations on illustrating that point for us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir. I'll see if I can make this as simple as possible for even a 5 year old can understand.

 

Overhaul has some of the original Bio developers of the original game. You also claimed Bio "knew how and why things worked". Overhaul had access to the original code, despite not having access to the original art assets.

 

Overhaul having the original game, the original code, and some of the original developers are now 'enhancing the original game'. What we have with the EE's is something different to the original game and in a lot of ways not for the better. Overhaul introduced new bugs to the original game when they tried to enhance it.

 

This has nothing to do with BIS. Never has, never will. But keep trying to introduce those red herrings if it makes you feel better. If for some reason Obsidian decides to do an enhanced edition of PST and the IWD games, having some of the original developers from those games already working at Obsidian, then your analogy may apply. That would be the level playing field. Since Obsidian are not enhancing these games (PST/IWD), then for you to talk about BIS is just a fail attempt at trolling. Thanks for highlighting to the forum your selective and ridiculous trolling analogies.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

 

It makes perfect sense, the original bg-bg2 were a coding disaster that miraculously worked. They've had to go back and rewrite major sections of the code, which due to poor documentation and mind-boggling hardcoding breaks things elsewhere.

 

You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games.

 

To be honest is there anyone on these forums who is a developer at the moment who has looked at the underlying code of games like BG and PS:T and can say from an accurate and informed perspective that " the code was  a disaster"

 

If so I would like to know what languages that person develops in at the moment and from a technical perspective why the code in the older IE game was problematic. For me most of the views around how bad the earlier IE games were written is subjective and not based on fact but what people read or others told them.

 

So I want some evidence if thats alright

[BruceVC]

 

...

 

you made claims suggesting that nep were ignorant. Gromnir noted that the black isle folks were not only running into problems with their enhancement efforts, but they blamed some o' their difficulties on bioware's engines. is the black isle folks also ignorant? is not trolling to wish for a level playing field where bio and obsidian and overhaul all get treated same.  in point o' fact, we would consider the person who is trying to be selective critical (as 'posed to fair) to be the troll. so, congratulations on illustrating that point for us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir. I'll see if I can make this as simple as possible for even a 5 year old can understand.

 

Overhaul has some of the original Bio developers of the original game. You also claimed Bio "knew how and why things worked". Overhaul had access to the original code, despite not having access to the original art assets.

 

Overhaul having the original game, the original code, and some of the original developers are now 'enhancing the original game'. What we have with the EE's is something different to the original game and in a lot of ways not for the better. Overhaul introduced new bugs to the original game when they tried to enhance it.

 

This has nothing to do with BIS. Never has, never will. But keep trying to introduce those red herrings if it makes you feel better. If for some reason Obsidian decides to do an enhanced edition of PST and the IWD games, having some of the original developers from those games already working at Obsidian, then your analogy may apply. That would be the level playing field. Since Obsidian are not enhancing these games (PST/IWD), then for you to talk about BIS is just a fail attempt at trolling. Thanks for highlighting to the forum your selective and ridiculous trolling analogies.

 

 

You make some good points and I agree with most of what you say

[Gromnir]

 

...

 

you made claims suggesting that nep were ignorant. Gromnir noted that the black isle folks were not only running into problems with their enhancement efforts, but they blamed some o' their difficulties on bioware's engines. is the black isle folks also ignorant? is not trolling to wish for a level playing field where bio and obsidian and overhaul all get treated same.  in point o' fact, we would consider the person who is trying to be selective critical (as 'posed to fair) to be the troll. so, congratulations on illustrating that point for us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir. I'll see if I can make this as simple as possible for even a 5 year old can understand.

 

Overhaul has some of the original Bio developers of the original game. You also claimed Bio "knew how and why things worked". Overhaul had access to the original code, despite not having access to the original art assets.

 

Overhaul having the original game, the original code, and some of the original developers are now 'enhancing the original game'. What we have with the EE's is something different to the original game and in a lot of ways not for the better. Overhaul introduced new bugs to the original game when they tried to enhance it.

 

This has nothing to do with BIS. Never has, never will. But keep trying to introduce those red herrings if it makes you feel better. If for some reason Obsidian decides to do an enhanced edition of PST and the IWD games, having some of the original developers from those games already working at Obsidian, then your analogy may apply. That would be the level playing field. Since Obsidian are not enhancing these games (PST/IWD), then for you to talk about BIS is just a fail attempt at trolling. Thanks for highlighting to the forum your selective and ridiculous trolling analogies.

 

guess we gotta make simple enough so you can understand... seemingly more simple than 5 year old. bis had access to the biowarians when they was making the ie games, and that didnt help em either, did it? so, as 'posed to having access to the guys who actually built the ie engines at the times they was made, you got a handful o' ex-biowarians who often were  only tangential related to code, trying to makes the windows 98 era ie engine run smooth in windows 7. gosh, what could possibly go wrong?

 

regardless, and 'cause you keep seeming to miss the freaking point, black isle guys claimed that ie were terrible to work with. 

 

"You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding"

 

those were YOUR comments. we noted that black isle folks, while hardly the ignorant rubes you wish to paint nep as, used the ie-is-a-confusing-mess argument over and over and overandoverandoverandover. so, even if ie worked, if it were a mess and illogical and tough to work with as the Black Isle folks have suggested, then we suspect that a handful o' biowarians trying to bootstrap ie into windows 7 functionality over a decade later may be reaping some o' the problems that were sown by bioware sooooo long ago.  

 

is no red herrings save for your ignorance... which is, ironiclay what you tried to claim were nep's problem. the mere fact that baldur's gate worked (after many patches btw,) doesn't in any way diminish the likelihood that the original ie were a funky mess and that overhaul is fighting time and bioware's legacy in trying to make it playable on new operating systems.

 

...

 

is funny that Gromnir is the one being called the troll and hiro is claiming red herring. is like he dont even read his own posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not saying that overhaul/beamdog/whomever has an excuse. trent oster and others took on the job o' fixing and updating the ie. maybe they weren't up to the job, but they shoulda' know the scope o' the task better than most others. the original bgee were unplayable for us. whether or not the original ie were borked is complete irrelevant to us as a purchaser. we paid for a working game and didn't get one til many months later.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gromnir

[Bester]

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect

 

 

Please! I played through whole PST unpatched and it was fine. The game became noticeably slower after a few HOURS of playing, so you just had to save, quit and load it back up. But to call it an "epic bug"? You're bending the facts to accommodate your viewpoints.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Bester

[Gromnir]

 

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect

 

 

Please! I played through whole PST unpatched and it was fine. The game became a bit slower after a few HOURS of playing, so you just had to save, quit and load it back up. But to call it an "epic bug"? You're bending the facts to accommodate your viewpoints.

 

*chuckle*

 

so, the anecdotal experience o' bester trumps feedback from the boards back when ps:t were released?  HA! you do realize that more than you alone played ps:t, correct? we said "for many people." if you were one of the lucky folks who could play ps:t unpatched, good for you, but don't assume that your experience represents the experiences of all/most/or even many players.

 

 "well, when i played game X..." as a response to observations 'bout a game being buggy. is ... cute.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

guess we gotta make simple enough so you can understand... seemingly more simple than 5 year old. bis had access to the biowarians when they was making the ie games, and that didnt help em either, did it? so, as 'posed to having access to the guys who actually built the ie engines at the times they was made, you got a handful o' ex-biowarians who often were  only tangential related to code, trying to makes the windows 98 era ie engine run smooth in windows 7. gosh, what could possibly go wrong?

 

regardless, and 'cause you keep seeming to miss the freaking point, black isle guys claimed that ie were terrible to work with. 

 

"You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding"

 

those were YOUR comments. we noted that black isle folks, while hardly the ignorant rubes you wish to paint nep as, used the ie-is-a-confusing-mess argument over and over and overandoverandoverandover. so, even if ie worked, if it were a mess and illogical and tough to work with as the Black Isle folks have suggested, then we suspect that a handful o' biowarians trying to bootstrap ie into windows 7 functionality over a decade later may be reaping some o' the problems that were sown by bioware sooooo long ago.  

 

is no red herrings save for your ignorance... which is, ironiclay what you tried to claim were nep's problem. the mere fact that baldur's gate worked (after many patches btw,) doesn't in any way diminish the likelihood that the original ie were a funky mess and that overhaul is fighting time and bioware's legacy in trying to make it playable on new operating systems.

 

...

 

is funny that Gromnir is the one being called the troll and hiro is claiming red herring. is like he dont even read his own posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not saying that overhaul/beamdog/whomever has an excuse. trent oster and others took on the job o' fixing and updating the ie. maybe they weren't up to the job, but they shoulda' know the scope o' the task better than most others. the original bgee were unplayable for us. whether or not the original ie were borked is complete irrelevant to us as a purchaser. we paid for a working game and didn't get one til many months later.

 

 

Don't let facts get in the way of your trolling Gromnir. As I said, this has nothing to do with BIS. So I don't know why you keep bringing them up. It's a red herring and nothing to do with BIS. This is about 1) Bioware, 2) Original game, 3) Overhaul and 4) BGEE. That's it. Where's BIS in that? There is no BIS. Trying to bring Black Isle Studios into this is not only moronic, it's the most retarded thing I've ever seen when discussing the Enhanced Editions. But I guess we can all count on Gromnir bringing stupid to the debate.

 

Also, the fact is Nepenthe said (unsubstantiated and pure speculation) that the coding was a disaster that miraculously worked. No recognition to the developers, the QA and everybody that worked on the game to get it right. Not the talented programmers that spent years on it. Apparently it was just a mess that somehow worked! Again, magic.

 

Also, you can't compare BG when released to when BGEE was released. The fair comparison is a fully patched BG to BGEE when released. Since the game Overhaul is working on is the FULLY PATCHED game. Again, a bit of common sense would go a long way, but we're talking about Gromnir here.

[Volourn]

"Where's BIS in that? There is no BIS."

 

BIS published BG.... so, yeah, technically, there is a BIS. <>

[Gromnir]

 

 

guess we gotta make simple enough so you can understand... seemingly more simple than 5 year old. bis had access to the biowarians when they was making the ie games, and that didnt help em either, did it? so, as 'posed to having access to the guys who actually built the ie engines at the times they was made, you got a handful o' ex-biowarians who often were  only tangential related to code, trying to makes the windows 98 era ie engine run smooth in windows 7. gosh, what could possibly go wrong?

 

regardless, and 'cause you keep seeming to miss the freaking point, black isle guys claimed that ie were terrible to work with. 

 

"You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding"

 

those were YOUR comments. we noted that black isle folks, while hardly the ignorant rubes you wish to paint nep as, used the ie-is-a-confusing-mess argument over and over and overandoverandoverandover. so, even if ie worked, if it were a mess and illogical and tough to work with as the Black Isle folks have suggested, then we suspect that a handful o' biowarians trying to bootstrap ie into windows 7 functionality over a decade later may be reaping some o' the problems that were sown by bioware sooooo long ago.  

 

is no red herrings save for your ignorance... which is, ironiclay what you tried to claim were nep's problem. the mere fact that baldur's gate worked (after many patches btw,) doesn't in any way diminish the likelihood that the original ie were a funky mess and that overhaul is fighting time and bioware's legacy in trying to make it playable on new operating systems.

 

...

 

is funny that Gromnir is the one being called the troll and hiro is claiming red herring. is like he dont even read his own posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not saying that overhaul/beamdog/whomever has an excuse. trent oster and others took on the job o' fixing and updating the ie. maybe they weren't up to the job, but they shoulda' know the scope o' the task better than most others. the original bgee were unplayable for us. whether or not the original ie were borked is complete irrelevant to us as a purchaser. we paid for a working game and didn't get one til many months later.

 

 

Don't let facts get in the way of your trolling Gromnir. As I said, this has nothing to do with BIS. 

 

oh well, if you said it, it must be true. say it again and maybe it will stick, right? but this is getting mighty repetitive.

 

"Also, the fact is Nepenthe said (unsubstantiated and pure speculation) that the coding was a disaster that miraculously worked."

 

again, black isle made similar observations about the ie, so while nep did not support, the claim that his observations is unsubstantiated is making you look silly.  you try to imagine-away the fact that bis made same/similar observations as nep... which is why bis IS relevant no matter how many times you do the little kid routine: pre-adolescent screaming "no it isn't" over and over as if volume and sheer stubbornness will make truth. 

 

well, say something new. please.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gromnir

[Nepenthe]

 

It makes perfect sense, the original bg-bg2 were a coding disaster that miraculously worked. They've had to go back and rewrite major sections of the code, which due to poor documentation and mind-boggling hardcoding breaks things elsewhere.

 

You've never done any programming I see. Coding disasters don't just miraculously work. That's an insult to the programmers and other people who worked on the games. It also implies that the programmers didn't know what they were doing at the time with their coding (coding disaster as you put it), but hey. it somehow how miraculously worked. Must be special programming magic. Also, as a few have pointed out, they have some of the original team members working on the EE's.

 

You should have a minimum base line (original game) and work up from there. At the moment, the EE's don't even meet the base line in various ways due to introduced bugs.

 

 

Allright, that was hyperbole on my part, but I have done enough coding to know that some are easier to work with than others and the fact that trying to remove presently unnecessary stuff originally done to make something run better on Windows98 is liable to bork things a bit. The others (Gromnir, too-leet) have illustrated my viewpoint already, but, indeed, a level playing field would be nice once in a while.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Bester]

 

 

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect

 

 

Please! I played through whole PST unpatched and it was fine. The game became a bit slower after a few HOURS of playing, so you just had to save, quit and load it back up. But to call it an "epic bug"? You're bending the facts to accommodate your viewpoints.

 

*chuckle*

 

so, the anecdotal experience o' bester trumps feedback from the boards back when ps:t were released?  HA! you do realize that more than you alone played ps:t, correct? we said "for many people." if you were one of the lucky folks who could play ps:t unpatched, good for you, but don't assume that your experience represents the experiences of all/most/or even many players.

 

 "well, when i played game X..." as a response to observations 'bout a game being buggy. is ... cute.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I know a lot of people who played it and they were fine too. But ok, if you think it was unplayable, then you should easily be able to get me some proof on the internet, because people already posted on forums at that time. Back your claims with topics of tons of people claiming it's unplayable.

 

I was on many different forums at that time and people were discussing many things, but never technical problems.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Bester

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

kidding right? for many people, ps:t were unplayable for a LONG time after release. the memory-leak were something that were problematic for folks in every single ie game made by black isle, but ps:t were epic in this respect

 

 

Please! I played through whole PST unpatched and it was fine. The game became a bit slower after a few HOURS of playing, so you just had to save, quit and load it back up. But to call it an "epic bug"? You're bending the facts to accommodate your viewpoints.

 

*chuckle*

 

so, the anecdotal experience o' bester trumps feedback from the boards back when ps:t were released?  HA! you do realize that more than you alone played ps:t, correct? we said "for many people." if you were one of the lucky folks who could play ps:t unpatched, good for you, but don't assume that your experience represents the experiences of all/most/or even many players.

 

 "well, when i played game X..." as a response to observations 'bout a game being buggy. is ... cute.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I know a lot of people who played it and they were fine too. But ok, if you think it was unplayable, then you should easily be able to get me some proof on the internet, because people already posted on forums at that time. Back your claims with topics of tons of people claiming it's unplayable.

 

I was on many different forums at that time and people were discussing many things, but never technical problems.

 

hyperbole gets you nowhere. we said "many." though, if you genuine wants to use "tons" we would happily defer as that is probable a smaller amount. figure an average o' 150 lbs per player... so, evidence o' 26 people... +/- 1 or 2? that should be easy enough. heck, more than a couple people on this board has observed that they had significant tech issues with ps:t.

 

as you is no doubt aware, the original ps:t fora is gone. josh sawyer were the board monkey at the time, but we doubt he chimes in to admit that ps:t were buggy and unplayable for many. this were fun though... we typed "technical problems bugs planescape" and gots loads o stuff. were some folks complaining on nma of all places 'bout the one-of-many bug we forgot about. patch 1.1 notes mention a game stopper we forgot: inability to get out of ravel's maze. *chuckle* appropriate. is endless loops in sensory orbs. gamespot retrospective, which is otherwise glowing, mentions the terrible memory leak which slowed game to a crawl. etc. so, even without access to original interplay boards, you gotta be willful obtuse to pretend that ps:t weren't a buggy game... buggy enough to stop some folks from playing/finishing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

To be honest is there anyone on these forums who is a developer at the moment who has looked at the underlying code of games like BG and PS:T and can say from an accurate and informed perspective that " the code was  a disaster"

 

If so I would like to know what languages that person develops in at the moment and from a technical perspective why the code in the older IE game was problematic. For me most of the views around how bad the earlier IE games were written is subjective and not based on fact but what people read or others told them.

 

So I want some evidence if thats alright

 

That didn't stop you from 100% agreeing before.

[Gromnir]

 

To be honest is there anyone on these forums who is a developer at the moment who has looked at the underlying code of games like BG and PS:T and can say from an accurate and informed perspective that " the code was  a disaster"

 

If so I would like to know what languages that person develops in at the moment and from a technical perspective why the code in the older IE game was problematic. For me most of the views around how bad the earlier IE games were written is subjective and not based on fact but what people read or others told them.

 

So I want some evidence if thats alright

 

That didn't stop you from 100% agreeing before.

 

it is unlikely you get a developer to admit such stuff anymore. josh got himself in trouble on a couple occasions by being too vocal. one time, during iwd2 development, josh publicly suggested that monte cook's ranger were better than wotc's but he observed than in spite o' rule zero (am oversimplifying as josh had a long list o' reasons and rationale... including fact that monte cook were the guy who designed the official wotc ranger)  wotc wouldn't let him use monte cook's ranger in iwd2. immediate after the poop storm hit, all josh's posts on the matter were deleted, and fergie stated that josh made no such claims in spite o' the fact that all the posters here saw and read josh's posts. it were sad, funny, and almost surreal. see, fergie realized that someday obsidian might needs work with wotc or bioware or whomever, and were bad to make an arse of self... even if you were being truthful... and mostly right. 

 

in a similar situation, there were more than a few post toee apologists posting here, at atari boards, and at rpgcodex. troika blamed failure of toee on everybody but self. Gromnir and others noted that black isle made iwd in less time than troika got to make toee and it ain't like atari forced troika into the schedule that were agreed to. unlike toee, iwd were made with an engine that were not developed in-house and for at least a few black isle developers on the project, iwd were their first game. were other handicaps noted, but for some reason, the engine thing kept annoying the Legion of Cain-- fans o' troika suggested that getting to use the ie engine were making things easier for black isle. and this is the point at which a black isle developer couldn't hold back no more.  the developer seemed almost angry at suggestion that black isle folks had it easier making iwd, and so he described just how difficult it were to work with the ie engine.  black isle built a better game in less time than did troika. but again, cain is working for obsidian nowadays, so am doubting we sees a rehash o' that developer's fiery denunciation. 

 

is a handful o' posters who will recall such events, but when developers is open and honest and angry, it is typical a mistake-- ain't gonna see such unless they forget themselves in the heat of the moment. lord knows you ain't gonna get them to repeat their mistakes public-like... unless you can kinda goad 'em into it. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 29, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hassat Hunter]

The underlying code of ANYTHING is a "disaster"... that's what timelimits and just having to make stuff work does.

Obviously anyone coming after it, having no such deadlines or limitations can look at it freely and make that observation then.

 

But what else is there to do... make a 10-year development just to 'tidy up code' no one ever sees anyway most probably?

[Nonek]

Interesting thoughts on the BG2 dream scenes, however personally i'm not enough of an expert on Freud and his profession to tell whether it stands up to scrutiny:

 

Okay the BG2 dreams, Imoen's got no idea what you're going on about when you talk to her about them, (as I remember, only just had the first one) so i'm left thinking that all the players and locales were of the protagonists own imagining. Candlekeep is an obvious setting, it's where the Bhaalspawn grew up and developed, which is very much a Freudian construct, so i'm going to use my rough grasp of Freud to interpret them.

There are three players in the dreams: Firstly Imoen who is confused and seemingly weakened, but is constantly referencing various outside stimula, such as: Candlekeep, Gorion, Elminster, Khalid, The Cowled Wizards etceetera. These all share the aspect of what society expects of the Protagonist, and yet they have all been taken away due to circumstances beyond our power. Imoen for me represents the SUPER EGO, but one that is doubtful and divided, the Bhaalspawn has lost too much structure in his life, and thus Imoen is weakened by unrelenting change.

Irenicus, a cold voice of reason, who raises logical arguments and encourages self knowledge. The protagonist is given a choice, of whether to accept the gifts bred in his blood and bone, or face the consequences for turning aside. Irenicus seems to wish you to sate the taint within, by the most expedient method. This to me is EGO, and it tells you the truth in every dream. It is obvious to see why the protagonist equates Irenicus with this role, he too is looking for a way to master the taint within for his own use.

The third actor is only seen once, but present in every dream. It is the Bhaalspawn essence, played by the suitably monolithic Sarevok, who accepted and embraced his infernal fathers gifts. There can be no role other than that of ID for this creature, it is the pure chaotic drive to murder and kill that consumes you, as it does all the Bhaalspawn. That devilish restlessness that defined the protagonists years at Candlekeep, and which is fondly remembered as carefree high spirits by many of your old acquaintances. The base instincts that must be satisfied now, and which Bhaal trusted would see all his children fall to his restless grave.

When the Bhaalspawn essence comes to devour you, it is to the heart of the dream that you flee. The inner sanctuary of Candlekeep, your childhood stronghold where you grew and developed. Here the ID pursues you and it is here in this stronghold of reason, from which EGO Irenicus gave all his lessons, that SUPER EGO Imoen can match him. Thus the super ego, all that we have learned from outside stimulae and the lessons of civilisation, contests with the id, the petulant desire to sate our childish needs. Balanced by the pure rationality and logic of ego, which seeks to resolve by the quickest expedient.

Thus the Bhaalspawn stops the essence of his father from consuming him, and when it is stripped from him he can live on through knowing, accepting and mastering himself, thus the Slayer form accessed. Don't know whether this is what Ray and Greg, who must know Freud at least better than me meant to suggest, but it's my interpretation.
 

Personally I think the writer may be overthinking the dreams somewhat as Bioware are quite straightforward, but if not then i'm rather impressed.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Given that, originally, Imoen was going to be the Slayer / betrayer figure in BG2, I'd say the writer was over-analysing things TBH.