Why aren't there more RPGs with infinity engine?

[Fargus]

Unity is "i'm a kickstarter has-been" and "my first gaem" kinda engine.

 

[ds]

There are better engines. Unity can do everything IE did plus a lot more

True, IE never managed to have loading times as long as many Unity games do. Nor can it compete on unnecessarily high system requirements.

and more programmers know how to use it.

Which ones are those?

 

[Goldschmidt]

I always laugh a little when people advocate Darklands. These days only polaks play it on potato pcs grown and harvested from their labour fields.

I dont care too much about writing but codex loves it and Darklands writing is very subpar to say the least. The game is completely outdated as well with barebone mechanics and barebone code. I literally cant take anyone seriously who considers Darklands a better game than BG. It is just some oldfag like myself who cant put his nostalgia goggles off.

ON TOPIC:

One can love or hate them but the unity engine produced amazing locations in the Pillars games that far outclass anything the Infinity Engine can do.

 

[Butter]

There are better engines. Unity can do everything IE did plus a lot more

True, IE never managed to have loading times as long as many Unity games do. Nor can it compete on unnecessarily high system requirements.

and more programmers know how to use it.

Which ones are those?

It's not Unity's fault if the games made with it are poorly optimized. It's entirely possible to make Unity games that run well. I guess I have to say this on RPG Codex of all places, but modern devs are bad at their jobs. That doesn't mean they should adopt a severely obsolete engine that they've never worked on and that doesn't feature a language they're familiar with (C# in Unity's case).

I'm getting the impression people ITT have no clue what engines are, and think "Well my fav game was built on IE/Build/Dark, so that must be the best engine."

 

[Immortal]

Because Infinity Engine is a mess that hasn't ever been refactored.

It was refactored, It's called the aurora engine.

 

[ds]

One can love or hate them but the unity engine produced amazing locations in the Pillars games that far outclass anything the Infinity Engine can do.

I'm curious which ones you think those are? Are you just talking about post processing effects fancy lighting etc. or is there actually anything that you think improves the gameplay that couldn't be added to IE when targeting the same hardware that Pillars runs on? Sure, pretty graphics can be nice but when you need to wait ages entering/exiting tiny buildings then someone made a bad tradeoff.

It's not Unity's fault if the games made with it are poorly optimized. It's entirely possible to make Unity games that run well. I guess I have to say this on RPG Codex of all places, but modern devs are bad at their jobs. That doesn't mean they should adopt a severely obsolete engine that they've never worked on and that doesn't feature a language they're familiar with (C# in Unity's case).

I'm getting the impression people ITT have no clue what engines are, and think "Well my fav game was built on IE/Build/Dark, so that must be the best engine."

It absolutely is Unity's fault when almost every Unity game is poorly optimized. It's not even that Unity is particularly bad at what it does (but it isn't great either) but that it's a general purpose 3D engine and building something on top of that is always going to be penalized by that additional abstraction layer compared to a purpose-built engine. For simple enough games you might not notice that inefficiency because hardware has gotten so much faster but often enough it is very much noticeable to the point where it impacts the game experience. Also, someone only comfortable in C# is probably the last person you'd want to make an efficient engine.

Perhaps you could name one of these mythical well-optimized Unity games?

Unity is popular for the same reason Electron is popular for non-game applications (hey, they too like to cite language familiarity) - because it makes it easy for mediocre developers to cobble together barely acceptable applications and most people will just accept the shitty performance. It's optimized for low production cost not for making the best product possible.

 

[KainenMorden]

As far as I can recall, a lot of the shit in the Infinity Engine was hard coded. It isn't really scalable to modern systems or games like not-shit engines are.

Also, Baldur's Gate sucks asshole, but not in a good way. I'm saddened by the version of the Codex that sucks the dick of that shit game. Aurora Engine reached it's peak with The Witcher, before all of the decent developers fled CD Project.

What games do you think were better?

Not sure if I've asked you this before, I typically ask anyone who hates BG what games they preferred. I actually prefer TB combat and understand that there are legitimate criticisms of BG but still see it as a must play for fans of crpgs.

BG2 is as much a must play for fans of CRPG as Dragon Age: Origins. I think both games are about the same level. For every reason you can say about why DA:O sucks you can give one for BG2. If you call BG2 a must play I will ask you why a new CRPG player should experience it before DA:O.

True must play to me is something like Planescape Torment which is objectively both shit and a classic that gives an awesome experience you cannot get from another CRPG.

Always meant to play DAO, never have so I can't comment on that.

BG games had a good mix of what should be in a crpg imo and were very enjoyable. I admit I'm biased and also I really enjoy dnd crpg combat so maybe I hold the games in a higher regard than I should.

 

[Stokowski]

1. Licensing / state of code base.
2. The Infinity Engine was a focused, bespoke engine built for a specific game-type and game-play. It isn't an extensible development platform like modern "engines".
3. Building environments in 3D, then converting them into multiple interacting 2D layers to create areas (that sill look gorgeous) is largely a lost art.
4. Nowadays players expect (though don't always get) better pathfinding algorithms.

 

[ropetight]

One can love or hate them but the unity engine produced amazing locations in the Pillars games that far outclass anything the Infinity Engine can do.

I'm curious which ones you think those are? Are you just talking about post processing effects fancy lighting etc. or is there actually anything that you think improves the gameplay that couldn't be added to IE when targeting the same hardware that Pillars runs on? Sure, pretty graphics can be nice but when you need to wait ages entering/exiting tiny buildings then someone made a bad tradeoff.

It's not Unity's fault if the games made with it are poorly optimized. It's entirely possible to make Unity games that run well. I guess I have to say this on RPG Codex of all places, but modern devs are bad at their jobs. That doesn't mean they should adopt a severely obsolete engine that they've never worked on and that doesn't feature a language they're familiar with (C# in Unity's case).

I'm getting the impression people ITT have no clue what engines are, and think "Well my fav game was built on IE/Build/Dark, so that must be the best engine."

It absolutely is Unity's fault when almost every Unity game is poorly optimized. It's not even that Unity is particularly bad at what it does (but it isn't great either) but that it's a general purpose 3D engine and building something on top of that is always going to be penalized by that additional abstraction layer compared to a purpose-built engine. For simple enough games you might not notice that inefficiency because hardware has gotten so much faster but often enough it is very much noticeable to the point where it impacts the game experience. Also, someone only comfortable in C# is probably the last person you'd want to make an efficient engine.

Perhaps you could name one of these mythical well-optimized Unity games?

Unity is popular for the same reason Electron is popular for non-game applications (hey, they too like to cite language familiarity) - because it makes it easy for mediocre developers to cobble together barely acceptable applications and most people will just accept the shitty performance. It's optimized for low production cost not for making the best product possible.

ATOM RPG and Trudograd are fast, snappy and work well, and they are made in Unity.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 supported a huge modding ecosystem. You could make your own modules, akin to new games recycling the assets. I wish those kinds of games were still made.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Better than Baldur's Gate? I wouldn't even consider myself a hater, but I have a long list. This is probably my all time list from about a decade around that game:
Ultima 7, Darklands, Betrayal at Krondor, Daggerfall, Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment (somehow an IE game!), Arcanum.
I've played through Baldur's Gate several times and don't hate it, but it's far from the gaming pinnacle.
edit: Meant to include Divine Divinity before Arcanum.

In a time period of +-5 years, i.e. from 1993 through 2003, to your list could be added Dark Sun: Shattered Lands (1993) and its sequel Wake of the Ravager (1994), arguably the Gold Box engine's Unlimited Adventures: Fantasy Construction Kit (1993) though it isn't a proper game, UU II: The Labyrinth of Worlds (1993), Perihelion (1993), Hired Guns (1993), Liberation: Captive II (1994), Might & Magic: World of Xeen (1994), Faery Tale Adventure II: Halls of the Dead (1997), Morrowind (2002), Temple of Elemental Evil (2003), among others.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Forgotten Realms Farttown Evenings a new infinity engine game - stuck with D&D 2 rules, isn't going to sell regardless of quality.

I'm quite sure you don't have to use the AD&D 2nd Ed rules in an Infinity Engine game. It shouldn't be too difficult to use other rulesets.

I would actually be happy if they used AD&D 1st or 2nd edition rules and I bet there are a lot of other people who would agree. It is certainly better than 5th edition, and I think I prefer it over 3 or 3.5 as well which is just over bloated crap now.

 

[Lord_Potato]

I look forward to the Infinity Engine games being remade in the style of the original BG3, with 3D graphics, first-person perspective, and turn-based combat.

Someone oughtta port IE games to Temple of Elemental Evil engine. I mean, both are essentially about walking over large jpegs in isometry, so... shouldn't be terribly hard?

There was a project to port ID2 into ToEE engine. It's closest mechanically (D&D 3 -> 3,5). It may have been abandonned though.

 

[scytheavatar]

As far as I can recall, a lot of the shit in the Infinity Engine was hard coded. It isn't really scalable to modern systems or games like not-shit engines are.

Also, Baldur's Gate sucks asshole, but not in a good way. I'm saddened by the version of the Codex that sucks the dick of that shit game. Aurora Engine reached it's peak with The Witcher, before all of the decent developers fled CD Project.

What games do you think were better?

Not sure if I've asked you this before, I typically ask anyone who hates BG what games they preferred. I actually prefer TB combat and understand that there are legitimate criticisms of BG but still see it as a must play for fans of crpgs.

BG2 is as much a must play for fans of CRPG as Dragon Age: Origins. I think both games are about the same level. For every reason you can say about why DA:O sucks you can give one for BG2. If you call BG2 a must play I will ask you why a new CRPG player should experience it before DA:O.

True must play to me is something like Planescape Torment which is objectively both shit and a classic that gives an awesome experience you cannot get from another CRPG.

Always meant to play DAO, never have so I can't comment on that.

BG games had a good mix of what should be in a crpg imo and were very enjoyable. I admit I'm biased and also I really enjoy dnd crpg combat so maybe I hold the games in a higher regard than I should.

I would argue in that case you probably will love both the Owlcat Pathfinder games more than BG2. As far as writing goes BG2 is probably better but the Pathfinder games have better combat and Pathfinder 1e is a way better system than D&D 2.5 (which is what BG2 basically is).

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Dragon Age Origins is a pathetic bore I quit halfway through

I played it until I went through about 2 or 3 battles and they were so bad I just quit. The way the RTwP works is so weird, you don't really feel in control of your characters somehow, I hated the game and I really wanted to like it because I played it years after it came out in the middle of the RPG decline and was desperate for something to play.

Bioware without D&D as its guide has no ability to imagine and design a world with magical items or creatures that have any verisimilitude, or perhaps they used to and lost it by the time they created Dragon Age. The entire experience is flat, dry, stale, boring.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I look forward to the Infinity Engine games being remade in the style of the original BG3, with 3D graphics, first-person perspective, and turn-based combat.

Someone oughtta port IE games to Temple of Elemental Evil engine. I mean, both are essentially about walking over large jpegs in isometry, so... shouldn't be terribly hard?

someone was doing that with Icewind dale into Temple of Elemental Evil Engine awhile ago, a Codexer even I think, but believe it was too much work and they eventually quit...

 

[KainenMorden]

As far as I can recall, a lot of the shit in the Infinity Engine was hard coded. It isn't really scalable to modern systems or games like not-shit engines are.

Also, Baldur's Gate sucks asshole, but not in a good way. I'm saddened by the version of the Codex that sucks the dick of that shit game. Aurora Engine reached it's peak with The Witcher, before all of the decent developers fled CD Project.

What games do you think were better?

Not sure if I've asked you this before, I typically ask anyone who hates BG what games they preferred. I actually prefer TB combat and understand that there are legitimate criticisms of BG but still see it as a must play for fans of crpgs.

BG2 is as much a must play for fans of CRPG as Dragon Age: Origins. I think both games are about the same level. For every reason you can say about why DA:O sucks you can give one for BG2. If you call BG2 a must play I will ask you why a new CRPG player should experience it before DA:O.

True must play to me is something like Planescape Torment which is objectively both shit and a classic that gives an awesome experience you cannot get from another CRPG.

Always meant to play DAO, never have so I can't comment on that.

BG games had a good mix of what should be in a crpg imo and were very enjoyable. I admit I'm biased and also I really enjoy dnd crpg combat so maybe I hold the games in a higher regard than I should.

I would argue in that case you probably will love both the Owlcat Pathfinder games more than BG2. As far as writing goes BG2 is probably better but the Pathfinder games have better combat and Pathfinder 1e is a way better system than D&D 2.5 (which is what BG2 basically is).

Really enjoyed kingmaker but got around 70 hrs in and took a break due to the kingdom management. I'd say they used bg2 as a blueprint for that game and I wasn't a huge fan of the writing but did enjoy the game overall.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Serious answer: Didn't the devs of Stunning and Brave Trannyspearmention that, to get WotC to license 2E rules again, they had to sell it as an expansion pack to an existing product?

New D&D products have to use the then-current D&D edition. Adventure Y first started as a standalone project until Hasbro reminded them of the business rules. Dragonspear made literally no waves anywhere when it was demoted to a DLC for a game that wasn't like a real hit. The EEs didn't brought new people to these games, or at least not in the numbers Beamdog and Hasbro wanted. Perhaps the whole operation was a license renewal of sorts (that's the reason why movies and albums get re-released every decade, actually). Achievement %s for the games on Steam are very low. Around 30% of the players have made it out of Irenicus' dungeon, for instance. And 3% made it all the way to the end of Dragonspear.

 

[cretin]

You can do semi-sorta 3E like Icewind Dale 2, but they apparently had a lot of trouble with it.

If you're going to force much more into the engine at that point, why not just build a new one.

IWD2 did have some problems, but I'm not sure it was due to the engine.

Most stuff pertaining to rules in the Infinity Engine is relegated to simple text files (2DA).

Not having directional facing matter in the engine seems like a pretty big problem, given its critical role in just about 99% of what could be considered "tactics" at the small unit level. That said I don't know if this was an engine limitation or just an oversight by IE developers.

 

[GaelicVigil]

I restarted Dragon Age Origins about 5 times trying to understand what the hell people liked in that game. I never got far. The long-winded dialogue is what killed it for me. Once Black Isle left the scene we were only left with the turd, Biowaste. Same thing with KotOR - absolute shit. At some point I'd always start to wonder if I'm playing the RPG or if the RPG is playing me. I'm honestly glad that era of blabber-RPGs is mostly behind us.

Knock the Infinity Engine all day long, but at least it gave me the option to read the dialogue faster than a 3rd grader.

Oh, and speaking of dialogue-heavy dog shit: Pillars of Eternity. *shudder*

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

One thing I like about the IE games is they are playable and fun. When I sit down at my computer and decide if I want to play Kangmaker or Solesta often what will end up putting me off is that every modern game feels like it has to have endless fucking 'crafting' systems which means you have to have these enormous inventories of junk you carry around, and every encounter means you have to then sort through piles of shit-- balls of yarn, wet leaves, mold, pebbles, ripped pieces of cloth and a bunch of 'recipes' and crap. It is both tedious and also makes it so that you can often just make the best weapons and magic items in the game destroying any sense of searching and accomplishment in finding rare wondrous items and replacing it with mashing together hordes of junk you have collected and cobbled together like a fucking hobo.

Its a totally different feeling and makes playing some of the modern games feel like a job, where the older games felt more like a true adventure and so often I jsut decide not to play them. People talk shit about the IE games, but they did a lot of things right.

 

[Alex]

I look forward to the Infinity Engine games being remade in the style of the original BG3, with 3D graphics, first-person perspective, and turn-based combat.

You do realise that this hypothetical project would need to use whatever 5.5e will turn out to be, right?

 

[Alex]

There are better engines. Unity can do everything IE did plus a lot more

True, IE never managed to have loading times as long as many Unity games do. Nor can it compete on unnecessarily high system requirements.

and more programmers know how to use it.

Which ones are those?

Not wanting to go into the merits of particular engines like unity or even the Infinite Engine, from the viewpoint of companies it is just that generic engines like Unity end up being useful for them. A company that was going to use infinite engine for a new project today would probably need to put any new workers on learning duty before they can start doing useful work. If you aren't using AD&D 2e rules, you will need to make changes to the source that will probably reflect into changes on how the other files are used as well, so even if then new hire is a BG modder, he would need to go through that. Furthermore, you lack any resources that you might get from unity directly such as using it for mod support or getting assets made specifically for it. Also, since no one is maintaining IE, you would need to support any system incompatibilities all by yourself.

 

[DemonKing]

I still enjoy playing the IE games occasionally to this day but while the background art still looks awesome and the RTWP gameplay doesn't trigger me too much, the characters, monsters and spell SFX look pretty damn primitive. Outside of the modding community it's done its dash, especially as modern Bioware would have no way to support it properly if they did license it out.

 

[scytheavatar]

There are better engines. Unity can do everything IE did plus a lot more

True, IE never managed to have loading times as long as many Unity games do. Nor can it compete on unnecessarily high system requirements.

and more programmers know how to use it.

Which ones are those?

Not wanting to go into the merits of particular engines like unity or even the Infinite Engine, from the viewpoint of companies it is just that generic engines like Unity end up being useful for them. A company that was going to use infinite engine for a new project today would probably need to put any new workers on learning duty before they can start doing useful work. If you aren't using AD&D 2e rules, you will need to make changes to the source that will probably reflect into changes on how the other files are used as well, so even if then new hire is a BG modder, he would need to go through that. Furthermore, you lack any resources that you might get from unity directly such as using it for mod support or getting assets made specifically for it. Also, since no one is maintaining IE, you would need to support any system incompatibilities all by yourself.

The IE is notorious for being a fucking piece of shit by anyone who had used it before..... there is absolutely no merit in using the IE in modern day.