Author Topic: Could you guys elaborate: Transition Mod Problems (TUTU TO2) (Read 4664 times)

Ashara · « **on:** January 21, 2005, 09:57:37 AM »

Quote

FROM Sim: http://forums.blackwyrmlair.net/index.php?showtopic=585

It was a conscious decision while developing BG1Tutu that it should not allow players to continue on into BG2 after defeating Sarevok. The team didn't feel that creating an acceptable transition would be a light or desirable undertaking...

Would you be able to elaborate on this statement and list all the problems that come to your mind which one would encounter when trying to create a 'seamless' transfer, ie the one that would place the full BG1 group into Irenicus dungeon?

Thank you in advance

jcompton · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:22:41 AM »

I don't have the list here in front of me, but we all know that a fairly significant number of BG1 NPCs have their fates determined in some other way by the BG2 plotline. It's not at all clear that there's a really great substitute for Edwin in Mae'Vars, or that a brief cutscene with Edwin StringHead'ing "Ummmm... I just remembered that I have to... be somewhere else!" inbetween games is terribly satisfying. Ditto Xzar and Montaron so that the Harper quests work.

There's also something to be said for the mystery of the abduction. If you show 6 ogres or 12 ogrillons or 48 demons abducting the PC, there's always the risk of "No way! My party could totally have taken them out with the necklace of missiles and those arrows of detonation we got from the final battle and and and and and!"

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:28:06 AM »

A major issue for me would be that you'd have to write interaction for all of the BG1 NPCs that got carried across into BG2. And, uh, you know how much work BG1NPC was. (Yes, this consitutes an "acceptable transition". Anything that lets you carry them through with little to no dialogue is just a crappy hack.)

It's also really not acceptable having to start the game with the "Tutorial" button. If anything, you'd have to separate the ToB starting screen into BG1 and BG2 rather than SoA and ToB. This leaves SoA-only players out in the water, and even for those with ToB, removing the option to start in ToB isn't a very good thing to do.

Those are just a couple of thoughts on the creative/technical side respectively.

Ashara · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:14:05 AM »

OK, narrowing down the question - one problem at a time - what are the technical problems involved with the crappy hack that would ignore dialogue vacuum, NPC cameos, destroy Minsc and Jah in cages if they are not in the party and, I guess, will provide you with the alternative Imoen (since one cannot avoid that)?

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:15:42 AM »

None. Somebody already did it back when Tutu was hosted on Studios.

I did once comment that maybe we should resurrect it just to thoroughly thrash BGT, but I think the majority of people who choose that over Tutu these days do so as much for the, uh, amazing BP support as they do the transition. I also really, really, don't want vanilla Tutu to be associated with anything crappy-hacky.

Ashara · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:35:00 AM »

What about carrying over GLOBAL values from BG1TUTU to BG2 with you current imported save. Is there a way to have them available in the beginning of BG2-ToB?

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:38:35 AM »

I'm not sure, actually. I imagine both LOCALS and GLOBAL variables are deleted when you import a character or game, but I doubt proficiency modifiers and such are, so you could carry over some information embedded in EXTRAPROFICIENCY slots or SCRIPTINGSTATEs.

So yes, Kivan or whoever can remember you romanced him.

I should also clarify the crappy-hacky remark earlier. Don't let me discourage you from developing a transition if it interests you. I'm not saying don't do it; I'm saying that we'd link to it as a Tutu Enhancement just the same, but make it clear that it's not part of the core package and we don't support it.

jcompton · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:46:41 AM »

Quote from: Ashara on January 21, 2005, 11:14:05 AM

OK, narrowing down the question - one problem at a time - what are the technical problems involved with the crappy hack that would ignore dialogue vacuum, NPC cameos, destroy Minsc and Jah in cages if they are not in the party and, I guess, will provide you with the alternative Imoen (since one cannot avoid that)?

I think you kind of summed up why it wasn't terribly attractive. It's easy to do something sloppy, but what's the point? You're still stuck with Imoen even if you chunked her personally in the final fight. Why even pretend that there's not some disconnect between the games?

jester · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:00:07 PM »

Jaheira-be-gone would be a mod I would enjoy very much. I am quite sure that it is unsatisfying to be abducted in the off and wake up in the dungeon as a cutscene would be. So no difference here. Many people would not think it is very convincing that they desperately want to get to Spellhold, so if those were separate games you would get the same transition issue. This leaves the stat changes and the party composition problem. This transition would include to write differnt stories/dialogues/CHREs, if some of the used NPCs are in the party. The game should note who is dead or not though that did not keep Xzar from reappearing so this point is rather mute for me.

It was a stupid design decision way back then to add NPCs from BG as flavour cameos (Garrick, Faldorn,...) thus breaking the story for everybody who had them in the party or kiled or both. Yes and Imoen big problem.

Please take Jaheira away from me and give me Dynaheir.

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:03:52 PM »

Ironically Imoen isn't the biggest problem, because there's already a mod in progress dealing with the plot if she dies prior to abduction.

Ashara · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:14:42 PM »

Well, the original query was, as Hendryk put it, to provide: "a basis that would let each game of SoA start where BG1 left off" for anyone who'd like to engage into "Return of BG1NPCs" heroic saga. (I do not think Imoen alone is making much of a gap. After all she could have been captured separately, being a BS, blah-blah-blah.)

My skin interest in it is - yes you've guessed it - preserving GLOBALs for Kiv, so I do not have to repeat the talks that are essential if BG1 PC have seen it, and to add stuff like PC reacts on Dynaheir's death if he romanced her in BG1

jester · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:23:17 PM »

But without Imoen you lack a main plot reason to find Jon. After all you have been tortured a bit, but other than that you are a happy chap. So why bother?

Ashara · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:31:52 PM »

So, Imoen aside, is a crappy hack bringing at least one character over with Globals/Locals intact possible?

jastey · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2005, 01:26:29 PM »

I would be very interested in this GLOBAL/LOCAL takeover myself. It is possible to connect such a "PC romanced NPC" recognition on to items the PC has in the inventory while being exported from BG, (so having them in BGII when the dungeon cutscene starts, and recognition can be triggered via dungeon area script like it is done for those pantalons), but the direct takeover of GLOBALs would be much more convenient, of course.

Ashara · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2005, 02:12:36 PM »

The problem with tokens transfer is that there can be only limited amount of them (plus they could potentially replace objects that are transferrable to BG2) so you are building in incompatibility with other mods into your patch.

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2005, 05:48:02 PM »

Nobody else is going to be using scripting states during the transitions. You can quite happily take over all of those used by Detectable Spells, and so long as you set them back to 0 once the game's started, nothing'll be amiss. Compatibility isn't an issue.

And there are an obscene number of scripting states, each of which goes up to 255. If you treat each as a bitfield, you've got something like 8*30 bits you can transfer between games, or you can break them down however you feel like.

On the other hand, if scripting states are removed, uh, come back and we'll talk more.

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2005, 05:56:23 PM »

Okay, scripting states ARE removed. However, ironically, testing reveals that it's all a bit of a non-issue, becaue local variables DO remain on the character when a BG2-style CHR or savegame is imported. I don't know if this is the case with importing from vanilla BG1, but that doesn't matter when we're dealing with Tutu.

Ashara · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2005, 05:58:50 PM »

So as long as I *can* carry a character over I will have LOCALs on him... now, see, that's why we need that 'drag your party to Chateaux' ugly hack

SimDing0™ · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2005, 05:59:59 PM »

GLOBAL variables do not survive, however.

Ashara · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2005, 02:23:29 PM »

Er... could not find a more appropriate thread... but do you guys working on Gate to Dungeon express? The last time I heard of it, Sim promissed the transition patch. Did it dry out?

Ghreyfain · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2005, 07:07:17 PM »

That was a spite-mod to prove that a transition could be done easier with Tutu than with BGT, but as neither he nor I actually want to make one, it fizzled. Suffice it to say that we still think anyone who wants to come along and make one will have a relatively easy time of it, assuming competence.

Ashara · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2005, 08:36:34 PM »

Awww, so much for hoping to have a seamless transfer to BG2...

Ghreyfain · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2005, 08:38:54 PM »

Seamless seems to have a shifting definition, depending on who you ask.

Ashara · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2005, 08:46:04 PM »

All I truly want are transfered GLOBAL's really

News:

Author Topic: Could you guys elaborate: Transition Mod Problems (TUTU TO2) (Read 4664 times)