Baldur’s Gate To Get “Enhanced Edition” This Summer

By Jim Rossignol on March 15th, 2012 at 8:01 pm.


A countdown over at BaldursGate.com has revealed that Atari and Beamdog intend to produce an enhanced edition of the original game for release this year. Some tweets from Beamdog’s Trent Oster suggest that the game will feature new content by some of the original team, and will also contain the Tales Of The Sword Coast expansion. We’ll try and find out a few more details soon.

, , .

205 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Prokroustis says:

    No wai…

  2. rei says:

    Bit of a letdown!

  3. sephiroth says:

    ‘enhanced’ could mean many things not all of them good but still I’m hopefull

  4. Brun says:

    Wonder what the “Enhancements” are going to entail?

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      I would take it as a given that an HD do-over for everything will happen, from animations to backgrounds … dynamic lighting, full 3D character models, etc.

      • neonordnance says:

        YES! I have long wanted to play this game and an enhanced edition seems the perfect way to do it. Here’s hoping that if it sells well, they’ll go on to remake all the class DnD CRPG’s, like Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment. TAKE MY MONEY!

        • Wizardry says:

          Classic D&D RPGs like Champions of Krynn, Pool of Radiance and Dark Sun: Shattered Lands etc. Never forget.

          • pipman3000 says:

            racial level limits and stat penalties for being a woman never4get

          • Wizardry says:

            Play with human males then. ;)

          • Topical Bliss says:

            racial level limits and stat penalties for being a woman never4get

            Racial differentiation is a good thing, and I don’t remember gender differences in BG. I think the latter is pretty much only a an Elder Scrolls hangup (Oblivion and previous).

            If it bothers you, you can go play Skyrim where Breton magic resistance is the right choice *every time*.

          • Wizardry says:

            @Topical Bliss: He’s talking about AD&D and specifically its implementation in the Gold Box cRPGs from the late 80s/early 90s. There were strict level limits for non-human characters. Baldur’s Gate didn’t have these limits.

          • Topical Bliss says:

            @Wizardry

            It *sort of* did when it came to multiclassing, in that only certain races could multiclass, and there were hard limits on what you could reach while multiclassing with the various races. Not the gender thing though. That was Elder Scrolls.

            I dont see this as a problem, though. It’s what keeps me playing BG2 for a decade after its release to try out new race/class/party combos, as opposed to something like Vanilla Skyrim where I experienced every conceivable playstyle with a single playthrough, and it now gathers virtual dust on my hardrive.

          • Premium User Badge

            Hidden_7 says:

            To be fair, in the Elder Scrolls it was stat differences, not stat penalties. Men and women of each race had the same total number of attribute points, they just weren’t distributed the same way.

          • Topical Bliss says:

            Oh, the gender differences were one of the less cringe-worthy things about the Elder Scrolls character creation. After all, this was the game system that modeled dark-skinned humans as a separate race of super-athletes at the expense of stats like intelligence.

          • kalelovil says:

            IIRC AD&D had a strength limit for females during character creation.

          • NathanH says:

            Well, in Elder Scrolls the total attributes for males and females summed to the same value. In old D&D, females were just flat-out inferior.

        • f1x says:

          Awesome, I love it to be 2D,
          I know a 3D redoing would be probably not so good looking

    • Premium User Badge

      Lars Westergren says:

      Now with 30% more Bauldness.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Andy_Panthro says:

    I guess the only question will be, can they do a better job than the modding community?

    Last time I played through it was with the Baldur’s Gate Trilogy and a few other mods from here: http://www.spellholdstudios.net/ie/bgt and here: http://forums.gibberlings3.net/

    • Premium User Badge

      Faldrath says:

      It *would* be pretty sweet if they worked with the modding community to improve the game. Here’s hoping.

    • Bhazor says:

      Ahh, gibberlings, one of very few website I’ve had saved in favourites for 6 years non stop.

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      Trent Oster’s mentioned that he fully understands the importance of the mod community (especially given that he was project lead on NWN), so it looks hopeful that the needs of the mod community will be catered for.

      Of course, this is BG1, and there aren’t quite as many mods out there for it.

      • povu says:

        That’s good news.

        The BG1NPC project is pretty awesome, it would be nice if it could be ported/remade. You definitely miss the lack of party banter in BG1 after playing BG2.

    • UnH says:

      Trilogy? Did I miss something?

      • Premium User Badge

        AmateurScience says:

        Throne of Bhaal is generally considered ‘3’ because despite it’s expansioniness is still bigger than many a whole game.

    • TheLastBaron says:

      from Trent’s twitter
      “We’ve looked into a lot of the mods out there. We’re trying to figure it all out. I troll gibberlings3 all the time”

    • mosauiasi says:

      Cute style gun butane jet windproof lighter! Extremely cheap $ 3.47!
      Simple Gun style cigarette lighter, Cute and wind-proof design portable to carry with, With built-in refillable port for cyclic use, Good gift for your friend, or yourself! http://url.vsofte.ru/6th

  6. Wizardry says:

    Turn-based combat please. That’s the most effective enhancement.

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      Sorry Wizardry … he’s already said on Twitter that the first rule of Baldur’s Gate is “don’t break the fun” :D

      • Wizardry says:

        D&D is turn-based. Therefore turn-based D&D is better. Fact.

        • Brun says:

          Nothing ever makes you happy does it?

          • pilouuuu says:

            Turn-based IS fun!

          • caddyB says:

            You can tell from TOEE’s combat being far superior to Baldur’s Gate and Icewind Dale that turn based combat is actually better for D&D. It is turn based on tabletop anyway.

          • pipman3000 says:

            but only because 2nd edition is shitty and unfun

            hmm i could play 2nd edition d&d or i could stab myself in the face with a fork, decisions decisions

          • Wizardry says:

            Wrong. The nine Gold Box games were all turn-based and, other than having less spells, less potions, less scrolls, less wands and less “once per day” items, had a far superior combat system to the Infinity Engine games and they came out a decade earlier. These games weren’t even 2nd edition AD&D, they were 1st edition.

            In other words, Temple of Elemental Evil didn’t have a superior combat system because it was 3.5 edition D&D, it had a superior combat system because it was turn-based.

          • pipman3000 says:

            no they weren’t did you even play those games?

            you probably think diakatana would be the greatest game ever made if it was turn based

            rpg codex: the internet makes you stupid

          • Wizardry says:

            Well, they used 2nd edition THAC0, but that was just a straight swap from to hit tables.

            See “magic-user”.

          • Luke says:

            I thought ToEE’s combat was terrible. I’ve never understood why people liked it so much.

          • Wizardry says:

            The combat encounter design was terrible, but the combat system was fantastic. Baldur’s Gate 2 encounter design with the Temple of Elemental Evil (or even Gold Box) combat system would be mind blowingly awesome.

          • Luke says:

            Fair enough.

          • D3xter says:

            It would certainly be the most efficient way to turn the Baldur’s Gate Trilogy from a ~200 hour experience into 2000 hour+ where you require 20 minutes to kill 7 kobolds taking turns and have to redo it all if you screw up and Quickload… yay fun…

            I’d rather turn-based combat stay with games it works in like HOMM/King’s Bounty/Civilization/Fallout etc. and not infest Infinity Engine games, thank you very much.

          • Wizardry says:

            Well, it worked in most of the other D&D RPGs just fine. Why are the Infinity Engine games any different? Turn-based combat doesn’t even have to be slower. That’s a myth.

          • Premium User Badge

            AmateurScience says:

            I thought f you turned on all the auto pause options BG became effectively turn-based anyway? All they need to do is keep that and everybody’s happy!

          • Chris D says:

            @Wizardry

            In theory perhaps, but you’d have to have instantaneously resolving turns which would make it much harder to keep track of what’s going on and thereby losing one of turn-based’s main strengths.

          • Wizardry says:

            Not really. An animation speed slider like Fallout had (but with a higher maximum) should be a necessity for turn-based games. I remember even The Bard’s Tale back in 1985 had a text scroll setting to speed up the resolution portions of combat.

          • Chris D says:

            The animation slider idea is a good one but it’s not going to fix everything.

            Ten people walking down a corridor individually is always going to take ten times longer than ten people doing it at the same time. That’s going to be significant unless that time is getting pretty close to zero, which is also the point at which you lose clarity.

            There are ways you can work around this by limiting the number of characters in a given situation or by not having people try to fight and walk down a corridor at the same time but sometimes simultaneous action is a better solution.

          • Wizardry says:

            Enemy movement can be batched up is necessary if the computer can compute whether they will be interrupted or not. This means that if you fight 20 kobolds the game can play a hell of a lot faster even with slowish animations. There’s so many solutions to problems. Pool of Radiance (and many RPGs of that era) allow you to talk your way out of most trashy combat encounters. Also, Pool of Radiance had a much better “fleeing” system whereby enemy groups would routinely exit the battle. Baldur’s Gate had this too but it rarely worked amongst enemy groups outside of bands of gibberlings. Oh and don’t forget the auto-resolved combat option in many of the old turn-based RPGs.

        • InternetBatman says:

          That is just belligerent. Drastically altering the combat system to make it turn-based is no better than making a real-time sequel to a turn-based game.

          • Wizardry says:

            You’re right. But then again, making a turn-based sequel to a real-time sequel to a turn-based game would be fine. Correcting what was broken. And that’s effectively what Baldur’s Gate is. It’s a real-time version of a turn-based game.

          • kalelovil says:

            I don’t see why the real-time combat system (or a pseudo real-time system) would have to be left out if a turn-based combat system were implemented.
            Why not give the player the choice to set the system to one or the other during play.

            Hunting kobolds and bandits? Leave the real-time system on.
            Engaging in a significant battle? Switch to the turn-based system.

            The computer could also manage this for the player, based on the encounter challenge rating compared to the player’s party (and a slider in the settings).

          • Wizardry says:

            Well, it’s simply because turn-based combat would actually make the games harder because the player tends to act between rounds more often than the AI does. It breaks the whole game balance.

          • kalelovil says:

            That is true of a game like Civilization where the AI has to manage a whole empire with some quite sophisticated rules, but in a game like Baldur’s Gate where the AI only has to manage combat using rules which are relatively straightforward I’m not sure if CPU time would be the bottleneck (especially in 2012).

            The ability of the programmers in designing the AI to deal with a wide number of different situations is probably more important.

            Anyway, they could always implement an artificial limit on the turn-based AI if balance turns out to be a problem. Or limit the use of real-time combat to encounters which pose little threat.

          • Wizardry says:

            Or find alternative ways that are better for role-playing purposes to “skip” trashy combat, like intimidating the enemies to run away or stand down. Perhaps even allow the player to demand their weapons and money so they get their loot. It’s not hard.

        • Werthead says:

          Pen-and-paper D&D is turn-based because it is not possible for six people sitting at a table to yell what their characters are doing at the DM simultaneously and expect him to understand what’s going on whilst simultaneously performing the actions of NPC enemies. It was a mechanic necessitated by the limitations of the medium. CRPGs are not so restricted.

          YOU prefer turn-based, we get that. That’s great. But it is neither inherently nor objectively superior to pause-based combat. Some people prefer one or the other.

          Just a thought but has anyone ever created a turn-based combat mod for the Infinity Engine games? With the elaborate scripts for pausing the game on enemy sightings/actions etc, it should be theoretically possible.

          • Wizardry says:

            Next you’ll be telling me that stats were a limitation of the medium and cRPGs don’t need them.

            And about a turn-based mod: Nope, I can’t recall any. It would involve a lot of work for people without the source code. This guy appears to have it though, so no excuses!

          • Werthead says:

            “Next you’ll be telling me that stats were a limitation of the medium and cRPGs don’t need them.”

            That idea does not logically flow from the former one. Stats are required for the genre, P&P or computer, on full display or hidden (and I prefer the former). Even the Mass Effect games, as distantly and loosely related to the genre as they are, still have stats.

            Combat, on the other hand, is something that can be approached and handled in a radically different manner from game to game, CRPG or P&P, or even from group to group using the same game. It’s a system for splattering bad guys and getting EXP and loot for doing so, and is quite flexible.

          • Wizardry says:

            It’s a system that allows you to express your characters through their strengths and weaknesses. Full real-time without a pause makes it dependent on player twitch skill instead and removes a necessary abstraction for the genre. Real-time with pause is bearable, but the Infinity Engine is so clunky that all sorts of unnecessary problems arise that again relies on player skill to do things that the player shouldn’t have to do in any RPG.

            For example, casting a fireball at a pack of moving enemies. In Baldur’s Gate you have to specify the cast location BEFORE your mage starts casting the spell. On top of that, the fireball has to fly through the air to the location before exploding. Often times the enemies have already moved out of the area before the fireball goes off. In Pool of Radiance you don’t have this problem. To start with, you cast a spell before targetting with it anyway, and only target after the spell has finished casting. Then, because it’s turn-based, the fireball hits the target and explodes before the enemies get a chance to move. You can still be interrupted between the time it takes to cast the spell, but enemies can’t move out of the way once you’ve successfully cast it.

          • Chris D says:

            Well, here’s the thing. Hitting a pause button? You sometimes make it sound like it’s akin to pulling off a combo in Street Fighter or something but actually it’s really not that hard to do. Maybe if you have severe motor control issues or something but it’s a trivial action for most people. You’ve already demonstrated several orders of manual dexterity greater than that just by typing a response to the last post in the time you did. I’m not really sure why it should be such a big issue. There are some limitations but you can work around them in the same way you can work around the limitations of turn based combat.

            I’m also not sure why even the most trivial degree of manual dexterity should be a deal-breaker but tactical judgement, which is equally much a player skill, should be fine.

            Edit: Almost forgot. On the fireball thing. You describe it as a problem but isn’t it really more of a feature? If you’re firing any slow-moving projectile you have to predict where the target is going to be. Having to do so in game only increases realism. There’s no easy way to model this in turn based but in real time it happens naturally and that would appear to be a point in its favour.

          • Wizardry says:

            Turn-based combat isn’t meant to be “realistic”. And no, the fireball thing wasn’t a feature. It was a design mistake.

          • Chris D says:

            I’ll give you that a game doesn’t have to be realistic to be good but I can only see having the option to be realistic as a good thing. Why do you consider the fireball implementation to be a design mistake?

          • Wizardry says:

            Because the action of lining up fireball shots has nothing to do with the traits of the character casting it and thus has nothing to do with RPG mechanics at all. It’s a completely useless skill requirement on the part of the player and is just one of many examples of the clunky combat system.

          • Chris D says:

            Ok, but the actions of selecting a target, choosing whether to cast fireball or icebolt, choosing when to use your last potion, choosing whether to use a sword and shield or whether to go beserk with a spiked club have nothing to do with character traits either.

            Why is that kind of decision acceptable while choosing where to place a fireball is not? If character traits were all that matters then we wouldn’t have tactical combat at all.

            It really doesn’t rely on manual dexterity either. If you play on half speed and pause it when you need to then the element of physical skill would be non existent and it’s purely a tactical decision.

          • Wizardry says:

            Because those decisions do depend on the traits of your character. Why use a potion of speed if you have a mage with the haste spell memorised? Why equip a sword on a character with axe specialisation? Why tell your fighter to attack an enemy mage with a protection spell on instead of a kobold archer interrupting your cleric? These are all things connected to the underlying RPG system (D&D). Targeting and predicting the location of moving objects is not.

            And I’m not even talking about the physical action of pausing the game. I don’t know where that came from…

          • Chris D says:

            That came from the first part of the post in which you first mentioned the fireball example in which the word “twitch” was brought up. Though now I read it again I see you do mention that “real time with pause is bearable” which I had missed so my bad. That does surprise me that you’d concede even that much though.

            But back on the more recent conversation. The point is that while you can base those decisions based on character stats it’s still you deciding and not your characters. Otherwise we wouldn’t bother with tactical combat at all, we’d just factor in all the stats into an equation and resolve it with a single dice roll. Making decisions based on character stats is still a player skill so why is that skill acceptable but no others, even in the smallest quantities are. Sure you can always say “Well that’s what the game is” but that seems like an arbitrary distinction to draw.

          • Wizardry says:

            It’s simply because combat mechanics and thus character combat statistics is the level of abstraction used in D&D. You could very much have an RPG without any combat mechanics other than a simple combat skill check. Add the combat statistic of all the player’s characters together, subtract the combined combat statistic of the enemies, add some random value, do a little more calculation and then subtract hit points, item durability, mana, bandages and potions to simulate the effect of the fight. Simple.

            In the place of combat you could have a really, really deep conversation system with 30 conversation/personality statistics. Then conversations can be as deep as D&D combat, with bluffing, intimidating, charming your “opponents” in a conversation “conflict”. A game like this would still be an RPG, but with far more mechanical detail situated in conversations rather than combat.

            If you look at it this way you may see my point. RPGs are about creating characters and then playing them appropriately. Sticking your mage behind fellow fighters because of their rubbish armour class and low HP is part of a role-playing game that models combat, just as intimidating a frail NPC with a 7 foot tall barbarian is part of a role-playing game that models intimidation/conversations.

            RPGs don’t need to be uniform. They don’t need to model every single thing to equal depth. This is the beauty of having different RPGs. You get variety. D&D happens to be a combat heavy one. In fact, most of them seem to be combat heavy because D&D was the first.

          • Chris D says:

            Ok. I find myself in agreement with much of your last post. Perhaps there has been some mistake somewhere. I need to get some sleep now and don’t have time to respond properly but thanks for the conversation. Maybe we’ll pick it up another time.

          • Werthead says:

            “Why do you consider the fireball implementation to be a design mistake?”

            In fairness, in the P&P game there is no time spent between a spell being ‘launched’ and it hitting the target. In the P&P game, someone launching a fireball at you is a big deal because the fireball travels at near-lightspeed and hits you almost instantly after launch. You can do a saving throw (simulating a desperate attempt to throw yourself clear) but at best that’ll just reduce damage.

            Fireballs can be pretty devastating and, for low level parties, even TPKers, so them tweaking the rules a little to make them more survivable isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, if your take is that the BG games should be 100% faithful to the P&P rules, it isn’t something that’s going to sit well with you.

        • alinos says:

          No thanks.

          As someone who likes the D&D based games like those that were on the infinity Engine.

          But doesn’t play D&D. I could honestly give 2 ducks about what D&D does in it’s rule book.

          Don’t mess with stuff, that doesn’t need to be messed with.

        • markgreyam says:

          I never did understand why all the early PC D&D games to spawn from their pen & paper (and obviously turn based) inspirations all insisted on either pause-time or outright real time.

          Someone get a kickstarter going to remake every old D&D and RPG game in the ToEE engine, that’s something I could get behind.

          • Premium User Badge

            Thirith says:

            Now I feel old… For me, *old* D&D CRPGs means Pools of Radiance etc., which were all turn-based.

            Even though I’ve been playing these games for ~25 years now, I don’t much care about whether they’re real-time, turn-based or some hybrid. I mainly play these games for their story and character building; the combat never appealed much to me.

          • Wizardry says:

            Eh? All the old D&D RPGs were turn-based. In fact, there were a good 12 or more turn-based D&D RPGs before Baldur’s Gate came out. But then again, there were many real-time D&D RPGs before Baldur’s Gate came out too, but they were so inferior that no one really talks about them today.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      I suspect they’re reusing a significant fraction of the original code, so a complete overhaul of the combat seems unlikely. They’ll probably even stick with AD&D2, THAC0 and all.

    • pipman3000 says:

      pause the game every six seconds it’s basically the same thing as turn based (boring stupid and tedious)

      • Brun says:

        I believe Baldur’s Gate 2 has an option to do this automatically. Not sure if BG1 had it.

      • Wizardry says:

        Auto pausing is not the same as turn-based combat. Play the Gold Box games, Temple of Elemental Evil or even Knights of the Chalice to understand the difference.

        • sneetch says:

          Temple of Elemental Evil had the best command interface I’ve ever seen, that circular interface was just so elegant and complete. I’m always saddened that there were no follow ups to that game or other titles in the same engine.

    • Asurmen says:

      It already is turn based.

      • Wizardry says:

        I don’t remember characters moving in turn.

        • Asurmen says:

          Sorry, I’ve realised what you meant. Most people seem to think that BG games are in real time but they’re not, it’s just the rounds are happening in the back ground.

          It’s already a long game, and you want proper turn based? No. Also don’t fix what isn’t broken.

          • Brun says:

            Wizardry is thinking of a Final Fantasy-style JRPG where the round structure is:

            1) Side 1 selects actions.
            2) Side 1’s actions are carried out.
            3) Side 2 selects actions.
            4) Side 2’s actions are carried out.

            Repeat.

            You do make a good point though – combat already has a pretty long duration and Baldur’s Gate (and especially BG2) is a huge game. Making all of the combat FF-style turns would make things very tedious.

          • Wizardry says:

            No. I’m thinking of Dungeons & Dragons not Final Fantasy. Are you serious?

          • Brun says:

            Final Fantasy was just an example. There are plenty of them out there, including the tabletop D&D. Final Fantasy was just the first non-D&D-based video game that I could come up with that had that style of turn-based combat.

          • Chris D says:

            Purely in the interests of accuracy that’s not actually how most FF games work. In most cases you have a speed attribute that affects how quickly each character gets to act but characters from both sides can act in any order.

            Also in the interests of accuracy, I very much doubt Final Fantasy is what Wizardry has in mind.

            Edit I see I am much too late. Ignore me.

          • Wizardry says:

            But most Final Fantasy games have Wizardry style blob combat, not Pool of Radiance style tactical turn-based combat. Final Fantasy Tactics would be slightly closer though.

          • bVork says:

            This conversation is why wargamers use the terms “IgoUgo” and “WeGo.” There’s more than one way to do non-realtime combat calculations, and Baldur’s Gate does the latter. “Turn-based” is an insufficiently precise term.

          • Wizardry says:

            Wizardry is “WeGo”. Baldur’s Gate isn’t. You can alter your actions in the middle of a round. It’ll only actually be “WeGo” if you couldn’t act between rounds. I’d have slightly less of a problem if it adopted a “WeGo” system.

          • bVork says:

            But altering your actions resets your character’s initiative and thus the time it takes to perform it. You’re essentially issuing a retroactive “wait” command and accepting a penalty of not doing anything during that round. I guess you think this is a bad thing, but I think the way the Infinity Engine games handle combat order is a better approximation of (pre-3) AD&D rules than anything else.

          • Wizardry says:

            No. You can move behind cover from a lightning cast by cancelling an order mid-round. Or you can step into a building just as a charm spell is fired. Or you can outrun the blast wave of a fireball mid-round by using a boots of speed. It’s not an elegant system, and there’s no way it’s a better implementation of AD&D combat than the Gold Box games are.

          • Werthead says:

            “Or you can step into a building just as a charm spell is fired.”

            Yeah, stepping off the edge of the map or going into a building (forcing a load screen to trigger) was a classic – if cheap – way of getting out of the way of powerful spells and was certainly a problem inherent in the game design.

            “Or you can outrun the blast wave of a fireball mid-round by using a boots of speed.”

            The effects of Haste and Boots of Speed on things like dodging fireballs and enhancing saving throws was something heavily debated by D&D P&P fans for years. House rules which allowed you to use them to outrun explosions and the like were pretty common during the 2E years.

          • Wizardry says:

            Sure. But do you honestly think dodging “projectile” spells in Baldur’s Gate was a design decision in the same way as D&D players wanting boots of speed and haste to increase your chance of escaping a fireball? Not at all. The whole problem came about because of their real-time implementation with animations. You can literally use boots of speed to completely annihilate a spell caster by running back and forth, forcing them to waste all their spells while you’re out of range. There’s absolutely no way they intended that.

          • bVork says:

            And there’s no way the Gold Box games intended to allow you to kite foes back and forth because of the inherent “ping-pong” movement nature of IgoUgo (with a screwed up combat order, I might add), but you still could. Anything that tries to move the near-total abstraction of AD&D WeGo rules into something more concrete is bound to fail in some fashion. I think the Infinity Engine implementation failed less than any other.

          • Wizardry says:

            Don’t even pretend that kiting is as much an option as it is in the Infinity Engine games, because it’s not. You could try to retreat from a spell caster but:
            a) You’d be lucky to be able to move all of your characters out of range.
            b) You’d get hit by the enemies you were engaging in melee upon retreating, something that the Infinity Engine didn’t implement.

            Anyway, it doesn’t matter how broken you think a turn-based system is. The fact is that each turn is an actual decision for the player. You have a situation in front of you, you know the rules of the game (however broken), and you choose the best course of action. In Baldur’s Gate it’s not like that for various reasons to do with the implementation of the combat. I’ve mentioned a lot of examples already.

          • bVork says:

            I don’t think turn-based systems are broken. In fact, I love IgoUgo systems that use grids or hexes because they constrain the player to a limited number of options and force you to weigh every decision carefully. But I also think that a turn-based system is a bad implementation of the AD&D ruleset, which is why I like the Infinity Engine. The issue here is not which type of system is superior overall, the issue is which type of system better adapts the existing ruleset to a new medium. AD&D computer games do not exist in a vacuum. While, on an intellectual level, it might be better to just throw out the entire P&P ruleset and do a new system from the ground-up for PC, that simply wouldn’t fly with publishers or with fans. So they have to make do with what they have, and that means approximating the combat system in a way that both most faithfully adheres to the original game and is also enjoyable within a computer game.

            (As an aside, TOEE‘s IgoUgo system works great because the 3rd edition rules can most closely be approximated with that sort of time-keeping system.)

          • Werthead says:

            “You can literally use boots of speed to completely annihilate a spell caster by running back and forth, forcing them to waste all their spells while you’re out of range.”

            Not entirely true. If someone fires a magic missile at you even whilst hasted or with boots of speed, the missiles are still going to hit you as they track your location. The only way to avoid them is to get to the edge of the map or a building to force a load, which is cheap.

            The problem is that fireball is an area-effect spell, not a character-targetted one, and that allows people to exploit the engine to create situations the P&P game did not allow for.

          • Wizardry says:

            It tracks you after the spell has finished casting. But I’m quite sure you can leg it across half the map while it’s being cast. I can’t remember what happens though, but I’m sure it just fizzles away. It’s exactly the same as hiding behind a pillar while a spell is being cast against you. Or shutting a door to the caster’s room.

    • Premium User Badge

      Faldrath says:

      An option for turn-based would be quite interesting, I agree.

    • TheLastBaron says:

      You’re getting a whole new Wasteland game, let us be happy with our Baldur’s Gate game which may be almost exactly the same. Besides, it basically already was turn based.

    • Matt says:

      Just pause the game every 6 seconds… close enough

    • disperse says:

      In the options you can set the auto-pause feature to pause at the end of every round. This turns it into a turn-based game where all of your choices you make at the beginning of the round are resolved simultaneously (with faster actions occurring earlier in the round).

      I like the fact that I have the choice to resolve trivial / unimportant combats quickly or pause frequently and micromanage those tough battles.

      • Wizardry says:

        You can talk your way out of a lot of crappy encounters in Pool of Radiance using the parlay option and then choosing a tone suitable for the enemies you are facing. And that was 1988.

        • crinkles esq. says:

          I guess I’m your only defender here, Wizardry. The Gold Box D&D games were amazing. And I agree with you about turn-based. I believe combat in RPGs should be about tactics and strategy, not about how fast you can manipulate a game’s poor UI. Now, I don’t really care about turn-based outside combat — I don’t really want to walk my party hex-by-hex. But combat is sacrosanct.

          • Wizardry says:

            Well yeah. Turn-based outside of combat is bad because it’s too slow and cumbersome. Imagine moving characters through a friendly town one by one. Having said that, I do like the old Ultima/roguelike style “you move and then everyone else moves with you” approach to non-combat gameplay. It meant that time didn’t progress unless your characters were moving, yet without any changes to the interface.

    • Premium User Badge

      equatorian says:

      Didn’t BG have the option to autopause at the end of every turn, which makes it pseudo-turn based?

    • Megadyptes says:

      lol, so much spergin’ over something that’s not going to happen.

  7. Jumwa says:

    I wish I could join in on peoples enthusiasm for these sorts of games. Every time they come up for sale or there’s some bit about the old D&D based CRPGs, I feel a tinge of excitement. But then I remember I’ve never liked them, no matter how hard I’ve tried over the years.

    • Brun says:

      One thing that would really help make it less of a pain in the ass to get into would be some more informative tooltips in-game that explain the impact of stats and combat mechanics, etc. more accessibly.

      I’m doing a replay of BG2 right now and typically I’ve had an AD&D rules guide up on my second monitor (since I don’t know all the rules by heart). It would be much less painful if that information was contained in-game in an easy-to-find manner.

      • Jumwa says:

        That’d certainly make a great start. The games did tend to be buried beneath a thick layer of obfuscation.

        I was able to get into Fallout back then after all, but that was much easier to grasp the mechanics of.

      • Beelzebud says:

        That’s why when BG 1 and 2 were new, they shipped with a very nice player manual that goes over every single possible thing you could have questions about. When I played those games, the manual was always sitting on the desk for reference.

        These weren’t games that held your hand, or insulted your intelligence.

        • Brun says:

          There’s a difference between “holding your hand” and presenting the information in a quick, clear, and non-headache-inducing manner. I know some purists don’t understand this concept. Clear presentation just makes it easier for the player to obtain the information he needs to make an informed decision. “Holding your hand” entails the game telling or suggesting to the player what the proper choice should be. There is nothing wrong with the former.

          • Chris D says:

            Very much this. Basically the easier you make it for the player to understand what’s going on the more complex you can make the actual game.

      • bill says:

        @Brun:

        Definitely. I’m playihng through BG1 for the first time right now (after giving up on BG2 and also PST before it) and the reason it’s so hard to get into all of them is down to confusion and a lack of information.

        I think a nice printed manual WOULD probably solve the problem – but my GOG editions came with a nice PDF manual. And its pretty hard to read a PDF while playing a game if you only have one monitor.

        Of course, these days we get tool-tips instead of manuals… but with something like BG we currently get the worst of both worlds. I think a lot of people who love it miss out on that point, because they know all the mechanics off by hart and can have endless arguments over whether long or short bows are better due to what variations and firing speed they have.

        I have 3 main issues that i run into:
        1 – I have no information on chance to hit or effectiveness of weapons. I kill this guy in one hit. I hit this guy 50 times and he’s still going. How could i know the difference before getting involved? No idea. My character has a sword and a bow – which one should I be using to be more effective? No idea.
        2 – Too many spells, many with obscure names, and no real indication of which ones would be more powerful than others. (even with the spellbook description)
        3 – NO descriptions for my character’s abilities. I have “charm animal” but i have no idea if there are limitations or what it’s effectiveness is.

        • NathanH says:

          1- If you turn on all feedback somewhere in the options, you’ll see the hit rolls and damage dealt in the combat log. This won’t tell you chance to hit but you can make a rough guess. You can’t tell how powerful something is before you start fighting it, but this is not unusual in RPGs. Whether sword or bow is better you can work out from information in the character screen (it will tell you your thac0 when each is equipped, as well as attacks per round. You can calculate damage from the weapon information and the character screen’s melee damage bonus entry. This is sufficient.)

          2. All the spell descriptions are fairly comprehensive, I don’t know what more can be done here except outright telling you which ones are good and which ones are bad.

          3. It’s like Charm Person but on animals I guess.

  8. briktal says:

    Is this going to be a free update?

  9. atticus says:

    When I buy this, which I will, it will be my fifth “edition” of BG in my ownership.

    1. Pirated back in ’99. (Sorry, I was young, foolish and poor).
    2. The Complete Trilogy (CD 2002).
    3. The Complete Trilogy (DVD 2007)
    4. BG1 + BG2 (GoG 2011)
    5. Enhanced Edition (BeamDog 2012)
    6. Tablet-Edition for whichever tablet I end up buying (BeamDog 2012/13).

    I am confident the list will grow even longer in the future.

  10. Bobsy says:

    I’m wary. The Baldur’s Gate games were so important to me back in the day I’m extremely protective of the gilt-edged cavity they’ve gnawed into my memories. I don’t even like the engine overhaul people do to the original because it swaps out the character models for the uglier BG2 versions.

  11. d32 says:

    The site is down since the countdown ended :)
    But they have sent the emails.

  12. Anders Wrist says:

    Still play the original from time to time. I hope this does it justice.

  13. BatmanBaggins says:

    Would a graphical update be possible? Nothing too drastic, Just some better/more detailed character models, maybe.

    • Brun says:

      Two biggest hopes I have for this are:

      1) Complete visual system overhaul. I envision something like Torchlight or Diablo 3’s engine.
      2) Interface overhaul. This is a big one. Going back and replaying BG2 has really shown me how clunky its interface is compared to modern games. It’s also something that can be changed without destroying the essence of the game.

      • KillahMate says:

        What Brun said. The one thing that would blow my mind would be Baldur’s Gate in a Diablo 3 style fixed-perspective overhead 3D world. Everything the same, just rendered in full 3D, with modern lighting techniques. This won’t happen, because Beamdog don’t have Blizzard’s budget.

        • Brun says:

          They wouldn’t need a that huge of a budget if they licensed an existing engine. Most of the work would then lie in art assets. The audio and story is already there (and should not be changed).

          That said, audio is sacred and should not be touched. Remastered is about all I’ll stand for.

      • disperse says:

        @Brun
        I’m curious how you think the interface could be improved. There are keyboard shortcuts for pretty much any action you might take and combined with a reasonable mouse-driven interface it is pretty easy to navigate.

        I’m afraid that the enhanced version, in the interest of streamlining for tablets, will have an interface that requires me to make multiple mouse-clicks per action and gives up the keyboard commands.

        • Brun says:

          I mention it in another comment – more information, more readily accessible, to start. Also, modification so that it takes up less screen real estate (would come with higher screen resolution, may not be necessary).

        • Wizardry says:

          Well, I didn’t like the scrolling character sheet containing a text info dump. And the journal kind of sucked.

      • pilouuuu says:

        I hope it’s HD and very detailed, but not 3d. I mean, we have Dragon Age for that. I want this to be a different experience. We already have too many 3d games and IMHO 2d ages much better.

        • KillahMate says:

          Here’s an example of what a 3D game with an overhead camera can look like today:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6bg6yhyTK4

          (admittedly a completely different aesthetic, but still)

          • pilouuuu says:

            Nice, but I still think that 3d engines can portray machinery quite nicely, but it’s a different matter when they represent human (or elf) characters. Even Dragon Age and Mass Effect graphics seem not good enough for me and undoubtly will look dated soon (now). 2d lasts much longer when they’re done well.

          • Wildcard says:

            Fancy graphics are nice, but I just want them to streamline the ui a little with tooltips and a dnd version of the civilopedia. Add those and I would gladly accept a few crisper textures and some higher resolution 2d art. Like my dad says “A beautiful woman can keep you warm for a few years, but a decent looker that can cook and you will have pie for life.”

    • BobsLawnService says:

      Keep the gorgeous backgrounds and replace the character models with nice 3D ones. There is no way that you could make 3D backgrounds that look as rich as the hand drawn ones without a monster budget.

  14. gritz says:

    Planescape next please.

    • ch4os1337 says:

      That’s up to Obsidian.

    • Werthead says:

      This will depend on Wizards of the Coast’s attitude. They’ve basically nuked the PLANESCAPE setting as it was in TORMENT’s time. Sigil is still around, but a lot of the details of the setting have vanished. They may be unwilling to allow a game showing an outdated view of the cosmology to be updated in such a way. OTOH, they’d make a more money and they seem okay with the BG remake using old and way-outdated rules (or maybe not, given that 5E will apparently include elements from older rulesets in it), so they might go for it.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Just as an aside, 4E’s cosmology is terrible. I love fourth edition, but I’m running a campaign that’s heavy in plane travel and it’s just disorganized. I get that it makes sense for the Elemental Chaos, but the Astral sea is just bad.

  15. Tusque D'Ivoire says:

    I think that’s the best possible announcement. No actually new game could meet the huge expectations that come with the name. so a new version of the same old game is not reaching for new heights, but might be genuinely satisfying.

  16. Premium User Badge

    Big Murray says:

    Just been announced on Twitter the rather unsurprising news that there will follow a Baldur’s Gate 2: Enhanced Edition.

  17. wodin says:

    It’s been so long ago i played either 1 or 2 I’d be up for buying an enhanced version and replaying.

  18. Luciphear says:

    I wonder what this even means…

  19. pipman3000 says:

    No buy until they add Tali-Zorah Vas Normandy as a romance-able npc >:(

  20. Yosharian says:

    What about Baldur’s Gate 2? Hmm. Bit of an anti-climax, this.

    • PearlChoco says:

      “Baldur’s Gate: Enhanced Edition™ and Baldur’s Gate II: Enhanced Edition™ will feature a re-forged version of the Infinity Engine with a variety of modern improvements.”

  21. Icarus says:

    I am okay with this.

  22. int says:

    You must gather your party before venturing forth.

  23. mr.ioes says:

    No release on steam. I wonder why.

    https://twitter.com/#!/TrentOster/status/180383395937914880

    Noone needs yet another digital distributer.

  24. MichaelPalin says:

    Meh!, I was hopping for a shooter or a pay2advancetime facebook game.

  25. MuscleHorse says:

    Fffffffffffffffuck, just take my money already.

    The modding community has already done a fantastic job, but I’m quite happy to pay (for a third time) for this game if it means I don’t have to go through the several fan-patches/wide-screen mods required.

    Improved lighting and snazzed up spell effects would be lovely.

  26. Demiath says:

    This is cool but rather unnecessary. Baldur’s Gate 1+2 don’t need much “remaking” beyond the mods we already got (unless they’re going to get voice acting for the entire script or something).

    • boats says:

      I agree. I just played through both a few months ago and didn’t really have serious problems with it that the mods and fan patch didn’t fix.

    • Svant says:

      No voice acting, nonononononono. Voice acting makes dialogue go Mass Effect, i.e. shit.

    • Apples says:

      Mass Effect’s dialogue is actually not bad (sometimes a bit sci-fi hokey but, well, it IS a sci-fi pastiche, and it’s usually well delivered). If you want to talk about bad RPG voice acting, talk about Oblivion and Skyrim, which are a million times worse and are actually relevant (as a series that moved from full-text dialogue to full-voice dialogue, rather than always having been designed for full-voice ‘cinematic’ experience like ME).

      BG is a really bad candidates for full voicing though because they simply have SO MUCH text and iirc half of that is not even dialogue, it is explanatory text to make up for the representational graphics.

      • Wizardry says:

        Indeed. I think the Baldur’s Gate games did it spot on. When you click on an NPC they either play a sound bite if it’s a generic character like a “commoner” or a “beggar”, or their first sentence to you is spoken with voice acting. Just hearing their voice at all allows you to “read” the rest of the dialogue in their voice (if that makes sense). It has almost the same effect as fully voiced dialogue, but has massive advantages such as being able to switch out words for other words (gender, class, name) as well as allow non-voice acted mods to fit in seamlessly with the game.

  27. buzzmong says:

    Overhaul Games are doing it? Lovely. They got quite a bit of praise for MDK2 HD.

    Although, being honest, I’d replay BG if all they did was port it over to the version of Infinity used for Icewind Dale. When you’re missing simple tweaks put in for the latter game it shows just how difficult it was to play the original, with things like clicking on signs not having pop up text as expected but making you dig through the chat box.

  28. KillahMate says:

    I’m hoping against hope, but… There is no way this will live up to the hype. Here’s what it would have to contain to fulfill its promise (for me, obviously):

    1. ALL of the original game and Sword Coast content, generally speaking.
    2. NO bugs – meaning no scripting bugs, engine bugs can be patched later. They should develop tools to import the near-perfect fanpatched Infinity engine scripts directly – in the words of Jesse Schell, if they don’t do this, they’re stupid. Building on that,
    3. World-class mod tools, with comprehensive support for importing everything reasonably importable from the Infinity Engine asset files; meaning, make porting mods from the original to the remake as easy as is humanly possible. Supported by
    4. A Skyrim-style completely open engine, allowing modders to do whatever the hell they want, also with good future-proofing.
    5. Interface redesign. Baldur’s Gate had an ugly, modal and non-moddable interface, all of which should be avoided as much as possible. Look to WoW and Diablo 3 for inspiration (in that part of design anyway)… which brings me to the big one:
    6. If all of the above is done, I will be happy with the game… but my secret hope (which I know won’t happen) is Baldur’s Gate fully recreated in a 3D engine, basically like Diablo 3. The same world, the same design, but with more detail, better lighting, better spells and animations… thinking about this already makes me sad. (Note that a vast amount of mod content would still be transferrable even if they did this, and most of the rest would be relatively easy to recreate).
    7. A little extra feature: making sure in advance (as much as possible) that when BG2 comes out, its install program will be able to plug a BG1 installation into BG2 to create one massive continuous game.

    Have I forgotten anything?

    • deke913 says:

      The sad thing is there is already a tweet I believe that states it won’t be in 3d and remaking this in 2d while awesome in its own right will likely derail any ideas of making it 3d.

      Gonna be real,real hard to beat the guys at gibberlings, as they are, in my mind anyway, true heroes for what they accomplished with the widescreen and other mods.

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      1. Already confirmed.
      2. Impossible for any game. You just can’t demand 100% no bugs, and you talk as if the mod community’s changes have resulted in a game without them … they most definitely haven’t erased all bugs, trust me.
      3. They’re not changing enough of the fundamental stuff to break most mods. Having said that, you’ve assumed that they would … and demanded that they make it possibly to port fan-made mods with entirely new scripts and assets over to a whole new game. That’s just not a reasonable expectation.
      4. They’re using the original engine with a few upgrades; they’re not changing enough to make it “a completely open engine”. That would require major changes. And it’s simply not reasonable to demand they give up the source code.
      5. A given.
      6. The Infinity Engine isn’t a 3D engine. It’s an isometric engine. To do what you want would require a whole new engine, which would effectively mean a new game. And no, the mod content would most definitely not be portable in that instance.
      7. Would be nice, but hardly vital.

      Declaring that you won’t be happy unless they fulfill your every outlandish desire isn’t very becoming.

      • KillahMate says:

        Surely I’m entitled to choose the conditions for my own happiness? I’m not placing demands on them, simply declaring my reaction.

        But anyway…
        1.Great!
        2. Well, OK. But there should really be little of those left by this point.
        3. You’ve said it yourself, it’s not a whole new game. It’s even the same codebase originally. They should try for this as much as possible, yes.
        4. Wait, is it a whole new game or isn’t it? Anyway I’m not asking for the source code. The Elder Scrolls modders never had it and they manage just fine. It’s all about decent scripting hooks.
        5. Also great.
        6. I didn’t know they were basing this on the original codebase when I wrote the list. Still, if they did it properly a lot of scripting could transfer fine. But I said I didn’t really expect this.
        7. Exactly.

    • Werthead says:

      7) I asked this on Twitter and they said they are looking at ways of linking the games together in a different way to vanilla or the way mods handle it. You’ll still definitely be able to import your character though.

      As for the 3D remake, no chance. I remember during the DRAGON AGE press junkets, BioWare said that making a game of the size, scope and variety of BG2 in a 3D engine was flat-out impossible. It would take them ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars. Creating that number of assets in 3D would simply not work. You can see that already in NEVERWINTER NIGHTS, which compared to the BG games re-uses and copy-pastes so many of the same environments and textures over and over that it becomes almost comical.

    • Svant says:

      3D = less details, not more. Thats a universal truth.

  29. Chmilz says:

    BG1+2 are easily a couple of my favorite games. But this seems like an attempt to sell me something I already own.

  30. Vinraith says:

    I assume this is going to be tied to Beamdog’s client?

    I can’t seem to get BGT working without crashing at the first combat, so I might be interested in this, but not at the expense of yet another obnoxious piece of gate-keeping software.

  31. deke913 says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJ9PaOdiCs

    This may be the saddest and most depressing preview of this game …beware it may make you nauseous.

    • deke913 says:

      The part where she says she hopes that this doesn’t turn out to be single player like most rpgs these days is priceless. How can these people have jobs and I’m still unemployed! Must….drink…much..must…drink…

    • Wooly says:

      Oh god, WHY did I watch that?!? That was truly, truly painful.

    • Apples says:

      Well, what can you expect from someone who obviously grew up with parents who couldn’t even spell her name. But Baldur’s Gate a co-op hack-and-slash on the PS2… *weeps*

  32. TheGameSquid says:

    I can’t pinpoint exactly why, but I’m totally not excited by this. The only thing BG1 needs is high-res graphics, but that’s basically solved by using BGTutu, right?

    • Vinraith says:

      That’s solved by the widescreen mod, actually. You can apply that independently of Tutu or Trilogy, but it works fine with both.

    • KillahMate says:

      That’s my point. There’s little they can think of that the modders didn’t do already.

    • Electricleash says:

      Playing through BG1 right now on my netbook, with Tutu installed, it’s amazing how much of a difference that the added NPC interjections make.

      BG1 & 2 are also a perfect candidate for a touchscreen interface.

  33. InternetBatman says:

    It’s going to take a ton of work to truly enhance it. The feel of those hand-drawn backgrounds is going to hard to replicate.

    • Wizardry says:

      They weren’t really hand draw, especially the towns and cities. They were pre-rendered. The wilderness zones used copy and pasted trees and rocks.

    • Electricleash says:

      The backgrounds for the Infinity engine really managed to hook me in, Icewind Dale Particularly.
      I would, however love to see what they might come up with if they intend to repaint.

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      I’d be surprised if they were going to do this without a complete re-drawing of the backgrounds, considering there’s going to be graphical upgrades.

    • Werthead says:

      That’s not necessarily the case. If the original artwork has survived, it should be possible to simply re-scan it at much higher resolution than was possible back in 1998. It’s a lot of work but not the same as having to redraw everything from scratch.

      IIRC, BG2 was released with much higher resolutions in mind, so the artwork for that might not even need to be rescanned.

  34. KillahMate says:

    Also, OBLIGATORY PLUG: For those of firm constitution, willing to brave dark paths and perilous adventure, so that they can – um – play Baldur’s Gate… There is only one way!

    http://www.shsforums.net/topic/53390-how-to-install-bwp-for-newbies-and-up/

    The BIG WORLD PROJECT! Connects all four Baldur’s Gate games into a single game, using the latest (ToB) Infinity Engine, with all the bugs patched, support for modern resolutions, and a frankly mind-bogglingly ridiculous number of addons, NPCs, items, monsters, spells, quests, dialogue, AI tweaks, etc etcetc… Approximately 10 gigabytes’ worth. The full install is 18 GB or so.

    Every bit of it is optional, install only what you like.

    I highly recommend installing at least the basics – connecting the games, patching bugs, modern graphics. And it’s actually not really that hard to set up. But basically:

    If you’re playing the game now, this is the way to do it.

    Of course, the best place to buy both games + expansions is GoG.com:
    http://www.gog.com/en/catalogue/#all_genres/search/baldur/

    • Wizardry says:

      Just make sure you don’t install extra romances, new companions and additional quests. Those are absolutely awful.

      • Premium User Badge

        Big Murray says:

        Have to agree with Wizardry on most of that. There’s some god-awful writing out there if you’re not careful.

    • Megadyptes says:

      The Big World Project is like someone taking a giant dump all over your game and leaving you to wade through steaming piles of shite as you struggle to find the few diamonds in the rough. I tried it out last year and after a day just wiped the slate clean. They definitely went with quantity over quality when they compiled that monster mod compilation.

      • KillahMate says:

        By all means exclude stuff you don’t care about. But it’s a great way to get the basics + some flavor all in one place.

  35. Pelikanol says:

    How can you enhance perfection? I hope they do mean minor adjustments to make the game more playable with modern monitors, minor graphical tweaks. But then again, that’s mostly been done with mods.

    Perhaps my fond memories are just blinding me. I have played BG1 and 2 since 2002 or about that time. What gameplay improvements could really be made?

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      I don’t think they intend to make many gameplay changes, or change things too fundamentally. They’ve said on Twitter that they’re using the Infinity Engine from Throne of Bhaal as a base (read: some improvements but still the same engine) and that they’re even hoping that existing community mods for the game will still work with the Enhanced Edition. That points to there being no changes to the base of the game at all, just graphical upgrades.

      Sounds like they’re going to be putting in some new quests though, given their confirmation of voice actors for new characters.

      • Pelikanol says:

        Ok, if they’re going for new content, then this would explain why they got some folks from the original team. Can’t wait to hear the details (how weird an announcement that was), but I still have big doubts about whether the work they do will add significant value for the game. Also, the question of price remains, given it’s really cheap on GoG already. What would be a fitting price tag for new quests, some visual and audio work, maybe some UI changes?

  36. theblazeuk says:

    The best thing about this news is the chance to see the deathly seriousness of Wizardry’s RPG logic in over a dozen post.

    Oh and I am looking forward to the game too of course

  37. Pelikanol says:

    I just had a ton of BG1 memories coming back at the same time looking at that pic: http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=screenshot&full=1&id=81

    I was 11 or so at the time and was obsessed with the game. The sound of putting a piece of armor on and off, the library when you’re imprisoned back at Candlekeep, the hidden +1 AC ring in the first (or was it the second) forest map at the beginning of the game, not far from an ogre that was damn hard to beat at lvl 1, the trick of killing the mage in the inn of Candlekeep using magic missile going up and down the stairs and then grabbing a first robe (otherwise you had to wait for quite some time), the sirens grotto on the shore on the west side of the map, the marvels they sold at the magic shop when you first enter Baldur. I have so many others.

    Count me as excited for what these guys are going to come up with (in case of disappointment, there is always the GoG version).

  38. AltF4 says:

    Enhanced means they will add a homosexual companion to bring the game up to date, that’s all.

    • deke913 says:

      You must now romance Noober to get the key to Minsc’s chastity belt. Thereby allowing you to romance Minsc. Which will make Boo jealous and open up space hamster dialogue.

    • Premium User Badge

      Lars Westergren says:

      They already had one, or at least bi. The planeswalker tiefling, a companion hidden in the secret mindflayer base in the sewers of Athkatla in BG2. He was only romancable by females, but it was implied in party banter that he swung both ways.

  39. bill says:

    I’ve just started playing if for the first time as well.. maybe i should wait. But then again it’s already “enhanced” with high res patches etc.

    I’ve been thinking over the last few days that what i really want is Baldur’s Gate – Web Browser Edition.
    I keep finding that i have no time to play the game at home, yet i have loads of free time at work and on the train at the moment – it’d be really nice to be able to play it in-browser on my work PC or android phone.
    (i know it’s doable on android – but that wouldn’t sync with my home game).

    • Svant says:

      Put your savefolder on a dropboxthingmajinger and sync it there, that way you could play wherever and have it synced =)

  40. Premium User Badge

    Oozo says:

    There is only one enhancement worth my time and money: PLATIN PANTALOONS!