[BG1] Open the Gates! Possible from beginning?

[The_Baffled_King]

21 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

... if opening up the city means the only reason you go there is out of boredom, I would find that much less compelling.

Yes, I agree. However, Awachi's comments, and Gorion's - and indeed your own - demonstrate that there are roleplaying reasons to go to BG city early on, even if nothing in the vanilla game was changed. Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm taking a pass on any further discussion within this thread of the points that you've raised. It's already clear why I posted in this thread in the first place, and I then answered Jebarkas' question insofar as it applied to me, but I don't want to debate non-technical considerations relating to an "Open the Gates" mod at all, and I don't want to debate the merits of BG:OW in a thread about an "Open the Gates" mod.

21 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I don’t think anyone around here (maybe bar one) has tried or would try to dissuade you from such a project.

Sure, but my initial concern was about the continuing proliferation of inaccurate information about the vanilla game that is likely to dissuade players from installing such a project (so I'm grateful to Graion Dilach for acknowledging my post). My comments in the last paragraph of my previous post point out that I'm aware of the potential for incompatibility or inconsistency with other mods but, if the worst comes to the worst, a player can choose which mod they prefer - but there should be a level playing field.

Edited May 22, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[subtledoctor]

56 minutes ago, The_Baffled_King said:

my initial concern was about the continuing proliferation of inaccurate information about the vanilla game 

I honestly don’t see what you claim to see. “Inaccurate information?” I haven’t paid too much attention to this but I have noticed about three different threads about changing the BG1 narrative structure/area access, and what I have seen is a number of statements like

Quote

”BG1 was designed from the ground up with a particular structure bound by its narrative flow, and any number of dialogues, quests, chapter-specific incidents and event script triggers seem to depend on that structure. This idea seems cool but also daunting. I have other mods/projects/maybe even a real life, so I’m not going near this.”

Which is a far cry from “inaccurate information.” I’m pretty sure everyone who posted something like that would love for someone else to make such a mod. 

EDIT - should also say, contemplating something like restructuring the game’s flow for one’s first mod does seem a bit bonkers and some around here might actually try to dissuade people from that. Not because people are Negative Nancies, but simply because they have been here a long time and seen umpteen plans for ambitious projects fizzle and become vaporware. It happens all the time, and it makes nobody’s game better. Every modder who has produced anything substantial started out with small projects that now seem comparatively insubstantial. Contrary to temnix’s insufferable nonsense, starting out small is a good idea. 

An example of the above: look at the failure of IWD-in-EET to get off the ground. Everyone acknowledges it is a huge project but everyone also hoped it would get done. The best alternative to it that I’ve seen is argent77’s TotLM-in-BG2, and not for nothing its scope is quite a bit smaller. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Graion Dilach]

58 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

An example of the above: look at the failure of IWD-in-EET to get off the ground. Everyone acknowledges it is a huge project but everyone also hoped it would get done. The best alternative to it that I’ve seen is argent77’s TotLM-in-BG2, and not for nothing its scope is quite a bit smaller. 

https://arcanecoast.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1247 is under public betatesting pretty much.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Graion Dilach

[The_Baffled_King]

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

I honestly don’t see what you claim to see. “Inaccurate information?” I haven’t paid too much attention to this ...

[Snip]

Which is a far cry from “inaccurate information.” ...

There were only a few very short posts to consider, but I'll help you out by quoting them, with underlining added for emphasis:

On 5/12/2022 at 5:32 PM, Graion Dilach said:

... Baldur's Gate is just full of NPCs and side content which refer the player dealing with the bandits/the mines/everything until that point. ...

(The current thread)

On 5/16/2022 at 6:43 AM, jastey said:

... the devs assumed that it's chapter 5 when the player enters the city, i.e.very dialogue of people inside would need to be adjusted, chapter specific happenings would need to be disabled until chapter 5, etcpp.

(The current thread)

On 5/25/2021 at 12:22 PM, jastey said:

... My experience is that wihtout changes, all character inside the city are talking as if the bandit thread is over.

(From this earlier thread, which was asking pretty much the same thing as the current one)

I am not holding any of the above posters to the literal meaning of their words. However, even allowing for imprecise use of language in casual conversation, it is inarguable that all of these posts convey a very clear meaning that a lot of the vanilla content in BG city references, or is otherwise dependent upon, events of the earlier Chapters.

If I simply said "actually, that's not the case", then who would be believed? A person with a "modder" tag, or a person with a "member" tag? A person with thousands of posts, or a person with less than 200? Without more, I would certainly assume that the person with a "modder" tag and/or the person with thousands of posts is correct.

So that is why I posted the numbers, which make it crystal clear that the information in the above posts about vanilla content was inaccurate:

On 5/16/2022 at 6:41 PM, The_Baffled_King said:

Eyeballing my list of 170 creatures, I found only 12 with dialogue that doesn't make much sense before some of the events of Chapters 0-4 have taken place:

[Snip]

12 out of 170 is just 7%, or 1 per master area (including the sewers). There may be a few more such creatures, but nowhere near enough to change the trend.

(As I explained, these numbers refer to creatures that "(a) are in areas reached via the bridge in Wyrm's Crossing; (b) are in areas reachable in Chapter 5; (c) are not in the Iron Throne tower; and (d) have unique .cre resrefs attached"; (e) presumably have dialogue files; and (f) are area actors, are joinable NPCs, or are Scar)

On 5/16/2022 at 6:41 PM, The_Baffled_King said:

The numbers above don't include generic creatures that share dialogue files, the most prominent of which are as follows:

[Snip]

Of these 34 dialogue files, only five contain dialogue states that are problematic before Chapter 5.

So... a figure very close to 12/170 for creatures with unique dialogue, and 5/34 for generic creatures (and rumors) with shared dialogue files - and the shared dialogue files contain many randomly-chosen dialogue states that are not problematic before Chapter 5.

This is an open and shut case. Perhaps the problem is that - to use your own words - you "haven’t paid too much attention to this".

[subtledoctor]

2 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Perhaps the problem is that - to use your own words - you "haven’t paid too much attention to this"

I definitely don’t think that’s a problem. In fact I think I ought to pay less attention 

[The_Baffled_King]

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I definitely don’t think that’s a problem. In fact I think I ought to pay less attention 

Well, it was you who mentioned having not "paid too much attention to this", so I cited that as a possible explanation. I won't speculate on any other possibilities.

Regardless of the reason, you have created a "quote" to summarize discussion that is not representative the breadth of what has been said in this thread, much less what my comment about inaccurate information was directed at, and then you have used your "quote" as evidence that what I said about inaccurate information was wrong. Faced with the actual words used in this thread by other people, and with a numeric analysis taken from the game files, you resort to an emoji with rolling eyes.

If this thread had occurred in a commercial context - in which I was a game developer pitching BG:OW, and the other posters were game developers who are working/have worked on Infinity Engine content for commercial release - I would have an arguable case for defamation and/or malicious falsehood against those who claim that there is a large amount of vanilla content in BG city that references (or is otherwise dependent upon) the events of the earlier Chapters, particularly if those claims are not subsequently retracted. This is obviously not a commerical context, and I am plainly not going to sue anybody, but the parallel is a perfectly sensible one - and I have alluded to this problem, albeit without the parallel, in this thread already (here).

Given that Graion Dilach was prepared to concede that he "expected worse numbers" (thanks again to him for that), I struggle to see why you felt the need to make the post that you made earlier on this page. If paying less attention means that you won't be replying, then I'm 100% on board with that.

Edited May 23, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[Awachi]

After 20 years, I think we can afford a few mods that 100% don't get along with anything else.  Multiple installs is no reason to stifle creativity.

[Graion Dilach]

4 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Given that Graion Dilach was prepared to concede that he "expected worse numbers" (thanks again to him for that), I struggle to see why you felt the need to make the post that you made earlier on this page. If paying less attention means that you won't be replying, then I'm 100% on board with that.

Yes, even if I was tongue-in-cheek, that research above was enough to prove that theoretically it would be closer to the level of Framed or Imoen4Ever in terms of feasibility and conflicts and whatnot than to the level of Eve of War. I just have way too many things to concentrate on already to attempt picking this up.

[subtledoctor]

On 5/22/2022 at 11:03 PM, Awachi said:

no reason to stifle creativity

My point was, I highly doubt anyone around here intends to stifle creativity. If you read a comment that way, maybe consider the possibility that you might have misconstrued the comment. Maybe (Heaven forfend) seek clarification on it!

Edited May 24, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Awachi]

6 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I highly doubt anyone around here intends to stifle creativity. If you read a comment that way, maybe consider the possibility that you might have misconstrued the comment. Maybe (Heaven forfend) seek clarification on it!

I didn't mean to imply you meant that, only that one of the principles of modding here is definitely in the vein of don't break others' mods, which blocks off whole avenues of changes.  

[Guest jastey_at_holidays]

43 minutes ago, Awachi said:

only that one of the principles of modding here is definitely in the vein of don't break others' mods, which blocks off whole avenues of changes

I think there is a misunderstanding here*. The meaning of that is: Don't Mod Incompatible Technically Wise If You Can Help It. (And there is a lot of ways to make a mod technically incompatible with others without any need while we have the syntax to prevent that.)

There is no "unspoken rule" of "don't make a mod that is (content wise) incompatible with existing ones." There isn't even one that would say "Don't break other mods", because sometimes that's totally necessary for one's mod idea.  Look at the mods that are there and are being developped, mine included. I am so happy @argent77 made Skip Chateau Irenicus because I never liked Dungeon Be Gone (while I very much appreciate a way to shorten ID). Look at my (newer) mods, with Imoen4 Ever never being compatible with Imoen Romance (and 85% of all other mods out there). Etc. So, the principle of modding is "knock yourself out but use the appropriate syntax not to needlessly break other mods". I think that's totally sensible.

And while I'm here:

@The_Baffled_King What I posted about the amount of work to open up BG city early seamlessly might have been inaccurate information because it was an estimation based on my experiences with Imoen4Ever, for which I searched through all of the dialog.tlk several times to find all references to Imoen / my friend being kidnapped, Spellhold, Coweld Wizards, Irenicus. It's totally doable but it takes a while and some patience to identify all references. And you proved me right by posting an extensive list about who's dialogue needs to be changed and what needs to be prevented in early chapters - for which you went through all relevant files and did exactly what I was referring to? So what was it I said?

On a personal note: I think some of your posts and phrases are offensive. You seem to be in a defense mode, only problem is there is no attack towards your mod idea, just hints and tipps and estimations. Not every "that's a difficult task" is meant as a decouragement. Sometimes it's just someone talking out of experience.

*Not just one, appearently, the whole thread is a communication desaster.

btw: I am ESL (English second language) so my phrasings might be inaccurate at times.

[subtledoctor]

17 hours ago, Awachi said:

I didn't mean to imply you meant that, only that one of the principles of modding here is definitely in the vein of don't break others' mods, which blocks off whole avenues of changes.  

I honestly don't even see that. Compatibility is a laudable goal, partially because it's nice and shows respect to other mods, but mostly because when you ask users whether they want Mod A or Mod B, the answer is usually "Mods A and B please!"

But still, when I put an idea into practice, step one is always just making it work and getting it out there. Then, once I've seen how it interacts with other mods, I can update it with compatibility in mind. I don't think it's reasonable to demand perfect compatibility from the get-go.

[Guest jastey_at_holidays]

11 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I don't think it's reasonable to demand perfect compatibility from the get-go.

I was talking about dialogue scripting above. You can INTERJECT or EXTEND_BOTTOM all other mods' content away, or you do it including a COPY_TRANS and be nice to other mods. That is something you can and should do from the start.

[subtledoctor]

6 hours ago, Guest jastey_at_holidays said:

I was talking about dialogue scripting above. You can INTERJECT or EXTEND_BOTTOM all other mods' content away, or you do it including a COPY_TRANS and be nice to other mods. That is something you can and should do from the start.

I mean, obviously it depends on the particular circumstances. I don't do much with dialogues so it's not my area of expertise; if there are two ways to do something and one is broadly compatible and the other is broadly incompatible, then sure, do it the right way from the start.

But if there is a specific interaction with another mod that would not be visible unless you install them together or inspect the other mod's code... most people don't have the time to do that kind of testing. There are many mods that I have never installed in conjunction with my own, so I am ignorant about their interactions (outside a basic understanding of how they work). But people being people, someone out there is likely to test any given combination of mods, so I think it's okay to release a mod and then find and fix incompatibilities as they are discovered.

In any event, I don't think the mere possibility of adverse interaction should discourage anyone from pursuing an idea - and I don't think anyone around here has discouraged others from pursuing their ideas.

Edited May 25, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Guest jastey_at_holidays]

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

But if there is a specific interaction with another mod that would not be visible unless you install them together or inspect the other mod's code...

Nah, that's not what I am talking about.