Baldur's Gate Are BG1 and BG2 too dated today?

[thesheeep]

Personally, I still enjoy both BG1 and 2.
But there are clearly dated things about those games.

One thing I definitely consider dated about them is the low build variety within a class. There's basically one way to play a class - and no, weapon/spell selection is not build variety.
It's just a consequence of there not being any feat system or "paths" you could take.
The number of classes / sub classes can still lead to many replays, of course, but other systems have shown by now how you can achieve build variety much better.

Another dated concept is that D&D low-lvl gameplay (obv affecting only BG1). Levels 1-3 are just not fun in any way.
Every char dies to a single hit if it happened to be a crit.
You got nothing to do other than left click stuff as you don't yet have any abilities/spells worth using (or a limit of like 2 per day ).
It's pretty lifeless.

organically woven

It's really not. Finding someone who needs saving with every three steps you take is not organic. BG1's mostly empty forest areas might be boring, but they're far more realistic (and thus not immersion breaking).

I'll take somewhat less realistic over plain boring any time.
Also, I don't find BG1 forests that empty - it's only a few of the maps that are truly devoid of anything going on. Most have something to find.

You are also very much exaggerating how many quests there are in BG2. It's truly not that much.
The total amount of quests in BG2 is actually quite low.
The quests are very front loaded, though - once you are out of the dungeon - that is true. They definitely could have spread that out more over the entire city.
But that's a fairly minor gripe.

 

[Butter]

Imagine how much worse BG2 would be if you had to realistically cross wilderness maps full of generic low level monsters when your party is level 10+. They could've either filled those maps with Umber Hulks and Beholders to provide a challenge, or just omitted the pointless filler.

 

[Tyrr]

BG3 will make people appreciate BG1&2 again.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

organically woven

It's really not. Finding someone who needs saving with every three steps you take is not organic. BG1's mostly empty forest areas might be boring, but they're far more realistic (and thus not immersion breaking).

I very much disagree. It's a large city with lots of needs and a lot to do. Each district seeds quests to other districts in multiple ways. There are only a few quests (5) which force the player's attention, but they can then be immediately ignored. It makes the city feel like a city. A place that's happening on its own. What Athkatla lacks the elegant physical continuity of Baldur's Gate, it more than surpasses with being alive and less static.

 

[Brimruk]

I'm doing a second playthrough of BG1, first playthrough was years ago with Tutu so it doesn't really 'count', and a few hours in I'm enjoying it a lot (way better than the same amount of time spent with PoE). It's definitely a slow start, and one-shots are frustrating, but it's fun seeing the possibilities/choices growing as I explore more and more maps (something happening in the Nashkel Mines, Gnoll stronghold has a captive, Kagain is looking for someone's dumbass son).

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

I saw BG3 on steam and it was trending on reddit. It looks pretty sweet as a game. Is the story of BG1 and BG2 related to BG3 in anyway and should I play them first? I don't really like turn-based games and they look very dated. But I don't want to miss out on any story.

Also, Do I need to play BG1 to understand the story of BG2?

Yes, they are dated because they don't use D&D 3.5 and the combat AI being primitive.

 

[adddeed]

What a fucking retarded comment, as par for the course from our local village idiot. BG 1 is just as linear as BG 2 story wise and you HAVE to do them in order, you cannot even find the bandit camp by chance or through sheer exploration. Speaking of exploration, it mostly boils down to a few empty maps with 1 or 2 enemy groups and close to no loot, CnC, story or anything so in other words a snooze fest. Bloat is completely subjective and in fact up to your own decision making if you want to pursue them or not, so not an argument whatsoever. Same goes for high level AD&D. Mage duels are only really a thing with SCS installed. Otherwise the mages are often so ill prepared that a single breach/Spell Thrust will suffice to beat them with your average party with only very high level liches being a problem if you encounter them very early. You complain about special weapons "everywhere" which is also not true, when BG 1 has nothing special whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of items are bog standard and exceedingly boring +1 or +2 weapons. If you are lucky you get an extra +1 elemental damage or some such which is still boring to the max.
So in other words, while I got no problem people liking BG 1 over BG 2 I do get a little peeved when dumbfucks like you try to tell people to not even give BG 2 a try.

Listen dumbfuck in BG2 you teleport to locations like an idiot, BG1 lets you wander around the world and explore. And no there is plenty of stuff in BG1 and on the maps, but dipshits like you need their dopamine hits with quests and magic items and bullshit every 5 meters. So in other words, BG2 is entirely skippable expecially for those who enjoyed BG1. Moron.

 

[Sykar]

The travel method is exactly the same you grade A retard. All you got is some extra empty filler maps between notable locations with hardly any loot, no story, barely any dialogue and 1-2 monster groups. The latter part is nothing but hyperbolic BS. Your

tag should be changed to "definitely retarded".

 

[adddeed]

Morons like yourself who love fast travelling around hot spots wouldn't understand anyway. Stupid degenerates like you ruin gaming.

 

[Sykar]

Trying hard for farming those "retadred" ratings I see.

 

[Chippy]

They aren't dated - except the mechanics. Take off your nostalgia goggles, comrades - 2nd Edition aged TERRIBLY. It's bare-bones and barren, more similar to ARPG mechanics than a fully-fleshed RPG system. One needs only to realise that there are no skills and, more importantly, the entirety of your character's social abilities are tied to ONE SCORE, which is additionally completely and utterly useless outside the first game.

Not to mention that non-spellcasting and/or non-thief classes have very few gameplay options, other than "click and attack."

The thing is they could have kept it simple with the social interactions being kept to one score and they might have had more time to create social interactions based on that, alignment, reputation, race, class and gender.

Instead they seem to now have all this other stuff, and we only got moderately more social interactions.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Another dated concept is that D&D low-lvl gameplay (obv affecting only BG1). Levels 1-3 are just not fun in any way.
Every char dies to a single hit if it happened to be a crit.
You got nothing to do other than left click stuff as you don't yet have any abilities/spells worth using (or a limit of like 2 per day ).
It's pretty lifeless.

Don't forget that helmets protect you from critical damage. Only thieves are susceptible to crits since they can't wear helms. Mages can just stack their defensive buffs later on. Have you tried using the Sleep spell at level 1? It is absurdly powerful and fun. The myth that Mages are weak, useless and not fun at level 1 is a sad thing that gets perpetuated by people who focus only on the damage dealing spells. Enchanters in general are my favorite specialist mages because their control spells are funny show stoppers. Most encounters end before they even began.

 

[thesheeep]

Don't forget that helmets protect you from critical damage.

That's relatively irrelevant with such a low HP pool as some classes have. So it takes two normal hits instead of a crit. Big deal.

Have you tried using the Sleep spell at level 1? It is absurdly powerful and fun.

Cast sleep.
Kill everything without resistance.
"Fun" .... You sure have an interesting idea of that word.

Nah, fuck that. A system that only knows either overpowered or trash is failed design.
Give me proper encounters with (at least a few) proper abilities and strategies that are more than "whoever casts game-winning-spell first".
And give that to me from level 1.
And give that to me for the majority of encounters.
Part of this is due to the primitive Vancian magic bullshit, but even when using that sorry excuse for an attempt at "magic realism" other systems are doing it better from the get-go.

The myth that Mages are weak, useless and not fun at level 1 is a sad thing that gets perpetuated by people who focus only on the damage dealing spells.

No, it is 100% true.
Low-level mages are not weak and not useless and fun for one single encounter (maybe two), and then it's over. Dead weight.
In games like BG, you can somewhat get around that by just sleeping for 8 hours every 30 in-game minutes.
But in PnP, and therefore from their very conception, low level mages in D&D are ... an investment to get to the fun part later on.
Or an argument for mixed classes and an unlocked XP limit. Or to start at least at lvl 3.

I should really stop writing about D&D.
Not good for my blood pressure.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Stuff

I offered you a solution to avoid getting crit hit and your reaction is to move the goal post just so you can still be angry about something.The chance of you getting 2HKO at low level D&D is relatively small provided that you're fighting against level appropriate enemies and aren't naked. In BG there is always the possibility that you run into Ankhegs or Ogres at level 1 or 2, but that's the problem you might end up havin in an open ended D&D game.

You also complained that there are no spells worth using at level 1, I offered you one. There are plenty of others such as Grease, Color Spray, Chromatic Orb, Blind and those are just the Arcane spells. I think the real issue here is that you just hate D&D with a burning passion.

 

[octavius]

What about this: "games are abstractions". Would it be fun if Athkala was in "real" size, and only one of 10,000 NPCs were quest related? Then you could talk about "empty" and "trash encounters".

 

[thesheeep]

I offered you a solution to avoid getting crit hit and your reaction is to move the goal post just so you can still be angry about something.

Nah, you misunderstood the problem as being about crits, when it was always about characters dying way too easily and depend way too much on RNG early on - of which crits are just the most severe example.
Which is at least partly my fault, as I didn't bother elaborating further.

You also complained that there are no spells worth using at level 1, I offered you one.

I neither wrote nor implied that. Many lvl1 spells are useful, some even scale well into the late game.
Confusing me with someone?

I think the real issue here is that you just hate D&D with a burning passion.

D&D isn't even that bad.
It's playable. Games based on it can still be a lot of fun (such as BG). But it has so damn many terrible design choices (some of which got improved upon in later editions, some things got worse ) ...
It's just aggravating that so many systems, most of which are just plain better designed and avoid so many of D&D's pitfalls, are overlooked and somehow it's D&D that got the spotlight and none of the better ones that came since.

 

[laclongquan]

I have to say this one thing

BG city, with its plenty of characters and quest on the next corner, feel heavy on the mind. My mind, to be exact. Athkatla in BG2 doesnt feel the same because it's widened more, but BG city in 1 is too bloody pressed together.

It's a perception thing~

 

[Jarmaro]

I'm going to give y'all my opinion as someone who attempted to play BG 1 a few months ago for the first time in my life. I believe I can say I've played a lot of games from that era, but never got around playing BG 1 because I'm not a fan of party RPGs. The version of the game I played was Enhanced Edition, but patched down to remove any additional characters or content, so ultimately just remastered original with some tweaks.

To start with, inventory management sucked. A big time. Looking back I was likely afflicted with typical hoarding mentality, but having to juggle between several characters' inventories exacerbated that problem greatly. Might very much be the worst party management experience I've ever had in gaming, UI-wise. I did play Icewind Dale when I was young but don't recall having such problems.

Another thing was my apparently retarded choice to roll character stats only once as I wanted to have a proper RPG experience, instead of min-maxing. I also picked a Mage. It wasn't a smooth experience in the slightest. Actually, it felt as if game hated me for it. Thoroughly unenjoyable magical gameplay, felt inferior to all other party members. Not to mention the start of the game was downright brutal, especially the kobold mines. I almost quit the game there, but then I leveled up once and suddenly the situation became managable (did I mention I turned off 'increase Health Points by maximum amount on level-up' option? Yeah, I was stupid like that, but didn't know the game punished no min-maxing).

To some degree I enjoyed the exploration, but most of that was just slowly walking around and killing shit. And checking for hidden secrets (I'm unsure if 'highlight' button was in the original game or not, but I cannot imagine anyone being able to find anything without it. Seems almost impossible to me, unless you autistically check every pixel). I didn't feel particularly rewarded for exploring. Manouvering the maps was a task in and of itself, I had to check wikis to find that one black-skinned mage at the kobold castle(?) because no way I'd have found her on my own. The map-artist is to blame as I see it, making the stairs to the hole seem like a part of the scenery rather than something the player can check. Maneuvering the party in dungeons and such was a trial of patience, and also not rewarding. If I was to play the game I'd probably skip bsically all of the caves and underground dungeons. Cannot recall anything worth mentioning aside of one strange ogre fight, who was dispatched swiftly once one of my characters drank Giant's strength potion and other used wand of summoning monsters.

Characters. Over the years I've read bazilion nostalgic elaborates about BG's characters and how memorable they were. Maybe my standards were too high, or the internet suffers from collective psychosis, but I didn't manage to care about any of them in the slightest. They were cartoonish, bland and uninteresting. They guy with the pet hamster was only memorable for his brain damage and screaming 'GO FOR THE EYES, FOR THE EYEEEEEES!' all the time. Other than that I can only recall the druid chick, mostly because she kept getting druid spells that I couldn't reasonable use in any fights, leaving me frustrated. But maybe that's just my retardness.

Story...was barely there. There were dreams and some mentions of it, but all of it was lost among other things. Most of the time I felt aimless, wandering around doing whatever. I didn't feel like I was going towards a goal at all. I need to come clean and say that I dropped the story few hours after reaching Baldur's Gate city, after probably 25+ hours of playing. I just couldn't find it in me to continue after clearing that one house in the city that belonged to the company connected to the mine affair. It all felt disconnected and boring.

Dialogues are on thing I'd like to remark on, they were utterly generic and cliche, but I enjoyed self-awarness and breaking of fourth walls at time (calling out cliches), it felt surreal as I haven't seen anything like that for quite some time, while one could expect that cliches would be calle dout today, not at the beginning of the genre. But maybe the authors read a lot of classical fantasy stories back in their own days. But still, they were only servicable, forgettable the moment they were spoken.

To summarize it all up, I don't think anyone these days would enjoy Baldur's Gate unless they had a particular affinity to older RPGs. Nearly every aspect of the game is inferior to what is available today, whether in mechanics, dialogues, story or just world (Forgotten Realms is a horrible creation that poisoned minds of many a young man, it should be excised from fantasy genre away with extreme prejudice). Clunky, awkward and boring would be an apt description, even though it may sound unfair considered its age and legacy. One thing it defnitely does better is being all around a more complete product compared to games published today, but that's hardly a big virtue considered everything else.



One last thing regarding Baldur's Gate 3, I'll probably try it out once it's released, even though it appears to not be too great so far. Previous game of the authors' was Divinity 2 which was simply too silly for me, but considering how much 'on the nose' Baldur's gate 1 was, it's not too far from the source material. I wonder how it will end up.

 

[Nano]

To start with, inventory management sucked. A big time. Looking back I was likely afflicted with typical hoarding mentality, but having to juggle between several characters' inventories exacerbated that problem greatly. Might very much be the worst party management experience I've ever had in gaming, UI-wise. I did play Icewind Dale when I was young but don't recall having such problems.

Uh, really? Unlike BG1, IWD has a ton of trash loot actually worth selling, meaning your party's inventory is constantly overloaded with that shit.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I won't really blame anyone for trying BG1 for the first time this day and age and not liking it, but one important thing to mention is: even if you disliked BG1, do not give up on BG2. BG1 was utterly meh for me and I liked BG2 a lot, having played both of them on release.

 

[thesheeep]

Another thing was my apparently retarded choice to roll character stats only once as I wanted to have a proper RPG experience, instead of min-maxing.

Systems that allow fully random stat rolling basically tell you from the get-go that stats are either irrelevant or they want you to suffer.
How else could it be?
If you roll a character with shitty low stats, and the character still does fine in the game, the game is just downright too easy. The stats were irrelevant.
If the character doesn't do fine, you'll suffer for the rest of the game.

The only solution to this is to have point buy or weighed stat rolling (which guarantees you won't get a too shitty or too OP stat range).

Either way, I don't see what's supposed to be "proper" about rolling stats instead of actually building a character. It's just gambling.

In PC games, it only leads to endlessly clicking the reroll button until you get something you actually want to keep.
Or the experience that you had...

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

The only solution to this is to have point buy or weighed stat rolling (which guarantees you won't get a too shitty or too OP stat range).

?? BG1/2 and IWD already have a solution for it - you can re-adjust stats after a roll. With how many dump stats there are, it's pretty much impossible to have a crippling roll. You certainly won't do as bad as some of the recruitable npcs. The famous re-rolling bonanza only concerns getting high strength, particularly for certain (multi)classes.

If someone wants to take the system at 100% face value and actually play a fighter with low str and 2-3hp per level then yeah... Although I could even maybe see it as a fun challenge, based on how long would it take to get the stat-increasing items.

 

[Tyrr]

Rolling until you get your perfect stats was part of the BG experience.
It felt like you made an effort to create your character, a character you could also later take into BG2.

Yes, having a fixed stat point pool is more balanced, but also way more boring. That autistic desire for balance ruined PoE.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You might think that until you try rolling a 18/00 str, 18 dex, con, wis fighter/druid. Have fun with that. I know I did.

Not.

 

[Jarmaro]

To clarify, I rolled once and then assigned the stats as I wished. I just didn't roll until I had as much stat points as possible, that's quite off-putting to me.