Why would they take the movies/cutscenes out? That sounds... kinda crappy really.

guess it was discussed to the death back when they did it, short story they were going for "the more appropriate look for a 'modernized'" game (total rubbish if you ask me), replaced some of the movies with crappier versions (including the iconic intro), left some of them as they were (incl. the uglier ones) and just nuked quite a few. They won't get into arguments now anymore, but I have a sneaky feeling they know they've fcuked it up, but not gonna ever admit it.

The shop at the SE corner of Beregost, (the inn's function as a shop) was defnitely taken out. Now Beregost does no shop that offers to buy anything off of you, and you can't sell weapons during nighttime.

The requirement of the ankheg-hunting was also substantialy lowered from 9 to 4.

The necessity to fight the Best Swordman Of The Coast was also taken out putting the same glove into the Bandit Camp chest.

So there were things taken out.

And this innocuous thread asking about version differences turns into a toxic screeching match, because of course it does. It's the GOG forums. toxic screeching match is the default mode of communication around here.

[For heaven's sake, just delete my post next time, if your attempt at censoring it's gonna render it incoherent.]

Factchecking is not ***********.
What are you, some kinda **********?

[Modded by Sarafan]

The word 'censored' is a trigger for some people. It was in the title.
Name-calling is a good illustration of what they were talking about. So good job there, friend.

[Modded by Sarafan]

could the mods please clean up the sad troll's work here?

I would like to inform you that your post violated our rules. Insulting is not allowed on our forums. Please keep that in mind. I'm giving you a warning. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding the moderation process please contact me through direct message.
Please refrain from using political arguments that can be insulting to some groups of people. I'm giving you a warning for using such an argument. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding the moderation process please contact me through direct message.

Well, then you should make that a possibility first.
Because you wanting a PM while you disable the possibility to send a PM is trolling in MY book.

That may be correct, but it seems like a design problem here. Some people want to keep Allow chat set to less than all, but still have bidirectional interactions with non-friends, especially when the non-friend is a moderator account. Since you have moderator privilege, I hope that means you have the ear of the people who could process this change request:

- If the receiver's privacy settings allow receiving messages from non-friends, then anyone can send to them, regardless of the sender's settings.
- If user B attempts to reply to a prior message from user A, and user A has not explicitly blocked user B, then replies are allowed (possibly only within some time window after user A's most recent message), even if user A's privacy settings would not allow user B to initiate a new conversation.

Failing that, an interface change that automatically conveys what you explained here would be helpful:

- If user A tries to send to user B, and user A's privacy settings cause the webapp to disallow sending the message, it should be clear from the error message that user A's own settings are the problem, not user B's settings. The error in the screenshot is not at all clear about why the webapp has decided to block the message.

---

Separately, the page you linked to looks rather broken here. For each of the preferences, as soon as I loaded the page, the preference was labeled with all of:

Saved Something went wrong. Please try again.

I would expect that Saved cannot appear until I change something and that nothing should go wrong (and that if it did, calling it "Something" is about as helpful as a Windows 10 error message).

The "integer scaling" technology is available to do exactly that, "play the 20 yo release w/o mods". GOG's original version is golden, works with modern computers all right.
I do play with mods, but the 1st level NPCs, completely optional, and I do play BG1 original, in the original BG1 engine and all.
It's all right, if it's the "proper" way to play, as you seem to have implied, it's up for discussion. BG1EE uses the BG2 engine, not the original BG1 engine.

Sure is changed, the gameplay is quite different. Most glaringly, the summoning limit of 5 summons is new. Old school, you could summon yourself an army anytime, anywhere.
Also, there was an infinite charm item, and a quest to get said infinite charm. This item could charm any creature, without limit. And many, many creatures had different dialogue when charmed.
The engine change caused many, many changes such as this, not necessarily for the better (like the summon limit, which had workarounds in BG2 but not in BG1).