Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Dark Sun vs Baldurs Gate

Which is better?


  • Total voters
    120

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,719
Location
California
I share Kyl Von Kull's view (as I've mentioned before) that Dark Sun is at its best before you escape the the arena, but I think the re-revisionist view that it's a mediocre game is wrong.

It's really fun. It has a great setting. It lets you do cool things throughout the quests. I don't remember any "cool options" in BG quests; maybe I just forgot them, but I remember plenty of neat moments in Dark Sun quests, with obviously the genie bottle being a highlight. It accomplishes a lot of world building without a ton of text. The visuals are distinctive and memorable, even if a little hit-or-miss. In general, everything moves quickly about the game -- animations, dialogues, character movement, power progression, even gear management (at least to my recollection, maybe I'm wrong?) -- in a way that compares favorably to a lot of other RPGs. It made groundbreaking use of a bunch of features.

I'm sure I remember the game more fondly than it deserves, but I do remember it very fondly.

Also:
I’m not the world’s biggest Baldur’s Gate fan, but even using RTwP it has better combat, a better story, and more interesting characters
Meh. I didn't play BG, but I played BG2, and its story is totally unmemorable. Like, I literally can't remember it. Evil wizard with a bone to pick with elves or something, and you had to hire someone to take you to a fortress of assassins or something to rescue a girl? Utterly generic setting, characters who were either zany or boring or both. DS:SL may have a worse story and characters, but both are below licensed-D&D-book storytelling. The difference is that DS:SL has a muscular, turn-the-volume-up-to-11 mindset that is perfectly embodied/inspired by its Brom art.

Maybe because I grew up a console kid, this simple intro:
80713-DarkSunShatteredLands.jpg


appeals to me more than either of these (let alone both!):

 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,422
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
"Deliberative actions based on visibile initiative order" would break many of AD&D's mechanics (and go against the game's spirit)

When I played AD&D, we rolled for individual initiative before combat, players and non-player characters acting on their respective turns. A player declared his intentions and rolled accordingly. In the case of a wizard using magic, we adhered to the rules governing casting times.

You won't find the phrase "real time" anywhere in the writings of Gary Gygax pertaining to combat. But you will find the terms and detailed explanation of Inititative, Turns, Rounds, and an ordered sequence of actions. I know there are pen and paper groups who practiced the method having all players declare their actions up front, and then the DM announced what happened. It is the simultaneous resolution, however, of real time with pause that utterly goes against the spirit of the game.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
When I played AD&D, we rolled for individual initiative before combat, players and non-player characters acting on their respective turns. A player declared his intentions and rolled accordingly. In the case of a wizard using magic, we adhered to the rules governing casting times.
The way you played has nothing to do with AD&D's rules.

I know there are pen and paper groups who practiced the method having all players declare their actions up front, and then the DM announced what happened.
That's not a house rule, it's the way AD&D is supposed to be played. The whole game is designed and balanced around its phase-based system.

It is the simultaneous resolution, however, of real time with pause that utterly goes against the spirit of the game.
It's not simultaneous if you use segments and rounds (like AD&D's rules). RtwP goes against some of the game's design and spirit, but it's still more faithful than TB.
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,422
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
It's not simultaneous

But real time with pause is. The hybrid compromise invented for a specific brand of computer role-playing. That's the point.

On page 104 of the AD&D Player's Handbook, Gygax clearly outlines the role of initiative before each round to determine which side goes first. There is no conception of everyone (players and monsters) acting at the same time. Further on, it describes individual players moving and taking action, on their own turns with immediate resolution... the cleric smites an orc killing it; the thief stabs and kills an illusionist.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
It's not simultaneous

But real time with pause is. The hybrid compromise invented for a specific brand of computer role-playing. That's the point.

On page 104 of the AD&D Player's Handbook, Gygax clearly outlines the role of initiative before each round to determine which side goes first. There is no conception of everyone (players and monsters) acting at the same time. Further on, it describes individual players moving and taking action, on their own turns with immediate resolution... the cleric smites an orc killing it; the thief stabs and kills an illusionist.
It's clear you've never read the DMG. Each side rolls for initiative, and only after actions have been declared by players. The resolution phase uses segments and follows an order based on different types of actions, multi-attack rules, modifiers, magic items, special rules, and potential ties.

There are many exceptions and special rules, but this is basically how it plays out in 1E:
  1. Determine surprise.
  2. Determine distance between parties (if unknown).
  3. Playes declare actions.
  4. Determine initiative with a d6 for each side in that round.
  5. Resolve actions by the side with initiative (characters with dexterity attacking adjusment, magic items, and other modifiers may be able to act first despite losing initiative).
  6. Resolve actions by the other side.
  7. Next round
If there's a tied initiative roll, each action's resolution is determined on a case by case basis, and many can happen simultaneously:

 

Kallinyo

Novice
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
21
Location
Anywhere
I gotta go with Baldur's Gate. The reason why I picked Baldur's Gate, is because I don't like the idea to make my own custom party. It seems kinda hallow, I like the way Divinity original sin did. Is that they have you talk and RP with both of your custom characters.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,042
It's not simultaneous

But real time with pause is. The hybrid compromise invented for a specific brand of computer role-playing. That's the point.
WRONG! RTwP isn't really RT combat. Combat is actually phase based and initiative plays a role. You just don't see it because they keep it out of sight. It is very obvious in NWN, though, when you turn all the rolls on.

Just because it SEEMS to be RT doesn't mean it is. During combat, it is all in rounds and phases, just like what AD&D was and 3.x is. You roll a high initiative, you will go first and then your toon will dance around until the other guys complete their actions before it moves again. If you low low, your toon will dance around until the other guy makes their attacks. BG has this also except it also adds fake attacks into the animations to make it look like they are actually fighting each other. The fake attack animations does nothing except fool the unobservant into believing they are missing more than they should. The speed factor inherent in all BG weapons should have clued people in on this.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
WRONG! RTwP isn't really RT combat. Combat is actually phase based and initiative plays a role. You just don't see it because they keep it out of sight. It is very obvious in NWN, though, when you turn all the rolls on.

Just because it SEEMS to be RT doesn't mean it is. During combat, it is all in rounds and phases, just like what AD&D was and 3.x is. You roll a high initiative, you will go first and then your toon will dance around until the other guys complete their actions before it moves again. If you low low, your toon will dance around until the other guy makes their attacks.
That's not phase-based:
RTwP with autopause enabled is phase based combat, not turn based combat.
Not really. Phase-based systems have a declaration phase and a resolution phase. Most RtwP games let players change each character's action and/or movement at will. That means they can react to things and/or change their mind without any penalty, which would defeat the purpose of any phase-based system.

BG has this also except it also adds fake attacks into the animations to make it look like they are actually fighting each other. The fake attack animations does nothing except fool the unobservant into believing they are missing more than they should.
That's somewhat faithful to AD&D, though it could've had better and more varied animations. In AD&D, the attack roll represents an opening found between several missed/blocked/parried attacks and maneuvers:

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the “to hit” number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical — a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered — it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an opening in the enemy’s guard presents itself.

This was changed in later editions, where each round takes 6 seconds.
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,241
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the “to hit” number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever.
See this, you "armour lowering AC is unrealistic" ingrates? You know who you are.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,042
WRONG! RTwP isn't really RT combat. Combat is actually phase based and initiative plays a role. You just don't see it because they keep it out of sight. It is very obvious in NWN, though, when you turn all the rolls on.

Just because it SEEMS to be RT doesn't mean it is. During combat, it is all in rounds and phases, just like what AD&D was and 3.x is. You roll a high initiative, you will go first and then your toon will dance around until the other guys complete their actions before it moves again. If you low low, your toon will dance around until the other guy makes their attacks.
That's not phase-based:
RTwP with autopause enabled is phase based combat, not turn based combat.
Not really. Phase-based systems have a declaration phase and a resolution phase. Most RtwP games let players change each character's action and/or movement at will. That means they can react to things and/or change their mind without any penalty, which would defeat the purpose of any phase-based system.

BG has this also except it also adds fake attacks into the animations to make it look like they are actually fighting each other. The fake attack animations does nothing except fool the unobservant into believing they are missing more than they should.
That's somewhat faithful to AD&D, though it could've had better and more varied animations. In AD&D, the attack roll represents an opening found between several missed/blocked/parried attacks and maneuvers:

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the “to hit” number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical — a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered — it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an opening in the enemy’s guard presents itself.

This was changed in later editions, where each round takes 6 seconds.
It depends on your definition of phase based. Mine is the Battletech system, where you have movement phase, attack declare phase, attack resolution phase, cooldown phase, end of turn phase, and you can end up unloading on a dead 'mech.

Technically, any system that resolves in phases (i.e., have an initiative system) is phase based. The alternative is simultaneous combat, which is what games like Suikoden and FF have.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Meh. I didn't play BG, but I played BG2, and its story is totally unmemorable. Like, I literally can't remember it. Evil wizard with a bone to pick with elves or something, and you had to hire someone to take you to a fortress of assassins or something to rescue a girl? Utterly generic setting, characters who were either zany or boring or both. DS:SL may have a worse story and characters, but both are below licensed-D&D-book storytelling. The difference is that DS:SL has a muscular, turn-the-volume-up-to-11 mindset that is perfectly embodied/inspired by its Brom art.

Memory is a funny thing. I remember the games I played as a kid much better than the ones I played in college, even the great ones. I replayed Bloodlines this year and I couldn’t believe how much I’d forgotten.

Maybe I’d feel differently about the Baldur’s Gate series if I started playing them in my 20s. Maybe you would’ve enjoyed the second game more if you’d played the first one, which gives you much more reason to care about rescuing your sister in the sequel.

But while DS:SL makes for a better elevator pitch, it’s hard for me to ignore its deficiencies (a more apt term than flaws). If Baldur’s Gate is a like a third rate D&D novel, DS:SL would be more like the outline of one. Sure, BG’s cast of characters is like a Saturday morning cartoon show. DS:SL’s characters are... well, with a few notable exceptions like Dagolar & Bro or some of the ghosts, they’re really whatever your imagination makes of them because the game doesn’t give you a whole lot to work with.

I’m surprised you don’t remember Irenicus, the villain in BG2 (with some great voice work by David Warner). But no one remembers the villain in DS:SL because you never see him.

Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin). Maybe if I’d started with the Gold Box games I’d have an easier time filling in the blanks. I played it after Fallout and Planescape: Torment (and Baldur’s Gate), though, so my reaction was, “wow, this is a great game... for 1993.”

There’s a case to be made that less is more, but there is indeed less.
 

visions

Arcane
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
1,801
Location
here
Or you can accept a mission from a prisoner to find a hidden gem, which you can only locate by bringing water to a tied up agent in the arena. After you return the ruby to the prisoner, he betrays you to the templars. The head templar sets you free on the condition that you deliver a message for him.

You don't have to bring anyone water to find that gem. I found it without doing so.
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin). Maybe if I’d started with the Gold Box games I’d have an easier time filling in the blanks. I played it after Fallout and Planescape: Torment (and Baldur’s Gate), though, so my reaction was, “wow, this is a great game... for 1993.”

With the exception of ultima 7, name a single game prior to 97-98 that feels 'living and breathing'.
 

Lord_Potato

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
10,913
Location
Free City of Warsaw
Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin). Maybe if I’d started with the Gold Box games I’d have an easier time filling in the blanks. I played it after Fallout and Planescape: Torment (and Baldur’s Gate), though, so my reaction was, “wow, this is a great game... for 1993.”

With the exception of ultima 7, name a single game prior to 97-98 that feels 'living and breathing'.

Daggerfall! Just playing it and the feeling is strong.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin). Maybe if I’d started with the Gold Box games I’d have an easier time filling in the blanks. I played it after Fallout and Planescape: Torment (and Baldur’s Gate), though, so my reaction was, “wow, this is a great game... for 1993.”

With the exception of ultima 7, name a single game prior to 97-98 that feels 'living and breathing'.

That’s my point! DS:SL is really great for a game from 1993. It’s not their fault that you can only cram so much stuff onto however many floppy disks compared to four CDs.

But the purpose of this thread is to compare a game from 1998 with a game from 1993. If you think that comparison is fundamentally unfair to DS:SL, I agree with you. Nevertheless, a lot changed in those five years and it would be dishonest to just ignore it.

Putting aside all of the things that made the infinity engine games special—things that would’ve been impractical or impossible for an early ‘90s RPG, then sure, DS:SL is the better game. But that’s like saying a silent film is better than one with sound if you watch them both on mute.
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin). Maybe if I’d started with the Gold Box games I’d have an easier time filling in the blanks. I played it after Fallout and Planescape: Torment (and Baldur’s Gate), though, so my reaction was, “wow, this is a great game... for 1993.”

With the exception of ultima 7, name a single game prior to 97-98 that feels 'living and breathing'.

Daggerfall! Just playing it and the feeling is strong.



Fuck off with your shitty randomly generated copy paste dungeon game lol.


Daggerfall was crap in 96 and it's crap today
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,042
Going through BG again with a party of 4 with the XP cap off. Using the pet basilisk loop, I ended up with a level 9 fighter before going into Durlag's (this is just before investigating the Iron Throne and going to Candlekeep, and before werewolf island). All good so far. Charname is a SC fighter tank with 18 Dex, two-and-shield style and 5 pips on hammer. Then we got to level 2 basement and that false stair to level 3. Every time I step on it, it spawns 3 skeleton warriors, which dies horribly to the guy with the hammer when he is supported by clerics and mages. I can do this infinite times.

:shredder:

It was supposed to be a trap, but all I can see is XP. XP eeeeeverywhere.

Currently, I have collected over 60 helmets, 40 +1 two-handed swords and 200 ice arrows...
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,719
Location
California
If Baldur’s Gate is a like a third rate D&D novel, DS:SL would be more like the outline of one. Sure, BG’s cast of characters is like a Saturday morning cartoon show. DS:SL’s characters are... well, with a few notable exceptions like Dagolar & Bro or some of the ghosts, they’re really whatever your imagination makes of them because the game doesn’t give you a whole lot to work with.
Yes.

And this is where you ask: "Which is worse for a game? A novel's worth of third-rate D&D writing, or an outline's worth?"

I’m surprised you don’t remember Irenicus, the villain in BG2 (with some great voice work by David Warner).
I remember him, but nothing about his motives other than some beef with elves.

But no one remembers the villain in DS:SL because you never see him.
It's not really a man-against-man story.

Both Athkatla and Baldur’s Gate feel like living, breathing cities. There’s nothing like that in DS:SL (while a bustling metropolis wouldn’t fit the setting, the three towns and the elves all feel pretty thin).
I dunno. In its own way, the arena felt better realized to me than most of BG2. But I'm sure there's hindsight bias at work here.

There’s a case to be made that less is more, but there is indeed less.
Right. I'm certainly not arguing that Dark Sun had more frames of animation, or more firework spell effects, or more words, or more space hamsters, or more voice acting, or more maps, etc. Along most metrics, Dark Sun had less. It just happened to have a way better setting, more interesting quest options, more memorable visuals (for me), and a better sort of munchinkism.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,042
I remember him, but nothing about his motives other than some beef with elves.
Irenicus' motives:
1. Get power.
2. Use power to strip one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, Bhaalspawn of his soul to replace my own because no other soul will do. Because, why not? Not like he can kill me, right? Failing that, I suppose taking Elminster's soul will have to suffice. Because lulz.
3. Invade elven town that threw me out because I turned Evil. How dare they, the bloody alignment bigots, the Evilphobes! I will teach them incloooooosiveness by destroying them all!
4. Force the object of my obsession to watch the destruction of everything she holds dear.
5. Rape said object of obsession into loving me because that is how true love really works, right? I read all the fanfics. Not that she is the Chosen of not one god but the entire elven Good pantheon means anything, right?
6. Profit, of course. Always the profit.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom