Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Roguey]

So if I understand you correctly, you're either J.E Sawyer, or just decided that he has the best understanding of design of anyone alive? (Not mocking here, just curious why you seem to use his words in lieu of your own beliefs for the most part.)

The latter. I use other people's words because I'll be damned if I'm going to put any effort into these kinds of discussions rewriting something someone's already said.

Anyway, that's a fairly reasonable statement, though I still find the surrender inherent in the idea kind of repugnant. It's basically: "Some Most players reload a lot, so let's design our entire game system around these people."

Altered for accuracy.

I mostly agree with what he's saying there in terms of a combination of frustration and triumph, but personally I find every Obsidian game to have zero frustration and maximum triumph. Meanwhile a game like XCOM is to me more on the level with where most games should be, but apparently impossibly frustrating to the average player, so what are you going to do.

Various reasons for that; part of it is because of incompetence and misplaced priorities, part of it's because they're targeting a wider audience, part of it is because Sawyer wasn't involved (or involved enough) in most of them. Josh and I are on the same page once again http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/235975522612416302

 

[Zeriel]

I think the prevalence of save-scumming is directly correlated to how easy the game makes it to use. In a lot of first person shooters where saving/loading is both easy to use via a shortcut (quicksave/quickload) and offers a big benefit (Dishonored is a pretty big culprit), it's abused beyond belief. But when you make people go to the save/load menu every time they screw up some minor detail to do their save-scumming, I think its use declines a lot. I don't know, I used to be squarely on the side of save-scummers, but having played games that are setup to both tolerate and make some degree of failure interesting without making the game easier, especially in conjunction with an iron-man mode, I can't help but feel like this whole practice of games built either around or in response to reloading until every aspect of your playthrough are perfect is taking something away from what they could be.

 

[Lilura]

Integrated or not, it's an expansion. Had MotB continued the story of the main character, would it have made NWN2 a good game all of a sudden? The reason I separate main games from expansions is because the approach is vastly different. Main game's purpose is to appeal to the wide audience and be accessible, whereas in expansions developers are free to test new waters and try something different. Thus they should be evaluated separately. And yes, I agree that only Durlag's tower was good.

I agree expansions normally up the ante, I just don't think ToSC is all that much different from the base game to say "its good" and "BG isn't".
Other than Durlag's Tower all it really did was increase the XP cap and throw in a few subpar quests and other lore-less dungeons.

- generic "boy/girl comes of age and discovers that he/she is special" setup. Words can't describe how much I hate such drivel.

And yet in Fallout you're the Vaultdweller, Fallout 2 you're The Chosen and Arcanum you're the Living One... all variations on the same theme, that you're somehow special and chosen (it bores me too, no matter how well they do it).

Anyway, my BG1 cons/pros:

cons:

>RtWP
>linear, unalterable story
>horrid pathfinding

pros:

>sandboxy style wilderness exploration
>very solid villain in Sarevok
>solid believeable plot that goes political, then diabolical (BG2 is harder to swallow)
>very large pool of recruitable NPCs for varied party compositions (25, I think)
>nuanced and fun battles against other adventuring parties and Iron Throne lackeys
>low level campaign with scant resources where every +1 counts and RNG wreaks havoc (difficulty)
>resting is very risky and party gets tired easy, waylays are lethal (difficulty)
>well-written and style captures the awkward spirit of AD&D2 Realms (thees and thous)
>You can actually dual-class specialists (Imoen thief->Conj, Xzar Necro->cleric, can't do this in BG2)
>worthy final battle, which for low level can be tackled in many ways
>thieves are, and stealth is, a necessity (BG2 cheapens both)


Just a few reasons why I consider BG1 base to be quite good. I consider it superior to BG2, but that's a matter of taste - I prefer low level to epic and exploration to narrative drive.

 

[tuluse]

Fallout subverted the entire thing by making being the "chosen one" a bad thing. You drew the short end of the straw and were kicked out into the wilderness to save anyone. You also didn't have any special powers.

Fallout 2 played the entire "chosen" thing for laughs.

 

[octavius]

In the BG games you're only one of several "chosen ones" anyway, aren't you?

 

[Jaesun]

Yes, there are a lot of other spawns of Bhaal.

 

[Delterius]

I think the prevalence of save-scumming is directly correlated to how easy the game makes it to use. In a lot of first person shooters where saving/loading is both easy to use via a shortcut (quicksave/quickload) and offers a big benefit (Dishonored is a pretty big culprit), it's abused beyond belief. But when you make people go to the save/load menu every time they screw up some minor detail to do their save-scumming, I think its use declines a lot. I don't know, I used to be squarely on the side of save-scummers, but having played games that are setup to both tolerate and make some degree of failure interesting without making the game easier, especially in conjunction with an iron-man mode, I can't help but feel like this whole practice of games built either around or in response to reloading until every aspect of your playthrough are perfect is taking something away from what they could be.

I'm afraid not. My brother is playing Dishonored right now and he save scummed through the menu - both of us are so used to the menu that we really just forget quick save and load even exists. Save scumming is ingrained into our very beings as gamers.

 

[Excidium]

Well it's Forgotten Realms so being the chosen one doesn't really make you that special.

 

[Sunsetspawn]

1. RTFM. Seriously. The manual is good and easy to read. Since you don't have one, download it.
2. Questions about BG2 gameplay are better asked at gamebanshee. Just searching their bg2 forum will answer lots of questions. Maybe too many.
3. You are playing one of the best cRPGs ever made. Enjoy it. That means stop fucking around and read the manual so you can fully enjoy the game.

Any summoned elemental can turn on you. That's what happened when you summoned the earth elemental.

Jesus Fictional Christ, I know. I'm figuring most things out easily because instructions are for queers and I have enough experience with Bioware's later work to not be completely lost. I know that elementals can turn on me, and I know how to use the ring: you click the little backpack icon on the bar next to the spell icon and click the "charm elemental" spell, after which I assume you click the little spell pointer on the elemental. But after I did that to the raging elemental stoopid Nalia ran up to him and started taking melee swings. She never entered the spell animation; never cast the spell. So was I supposed to use that charm elemental ring before I summoned the elemental?

And as for the manual, this is my clean computer so nothing gets downloaded onto it. I guess that really just means I'm too lazy to go to the AIDS computer.

Josh Sawyer says you're not having fun.

When did he say that? I though Obsidian was more hardcore. Are you talking about the Stamina AND Health thing, like Alpha Protocol. That bugged me to no fucking end. Really? That first bullet you take drains your stamina? Just fucking set the game in the future and use shields because the moment shit gets too retarded my suspension of disbelief takes a hit.

Anyhow, the absence of health regeneration is a plus.

HEALTH REGENERATION MAKES TRASH MOBS POINTLESS MASTURBATION

I guess I didn't realize that the rest system was broken. Shirly there must be a way to do this properly. Weren't there some games in the past that did this right? Didn't Betrayal at Krondor? My childhood memories of that game include extreme relief when I saw that inn (hopefully) approaching in the distance.

Fuck that noise, I only rest when I must.
It's still real to me, damnit!

 

[Globbi]

I know that elementals can turn on me, and I know how to use the ring: you click the little backpack icon on the bar next to the spell icon and click the "charm elemental" spell, after which I assume you click the little spell pointer on the elemental. But after I did that to the raging elemental stoopid Nalia ran up to him and started taking melee swings. She never entered the spell animation; never cast the spell. So was I supposed to use that charm elemental ring before I summoned the elemental?]

Animation for this ring is nonexistent and it is melee range. Saving throw negates it so it's probably what happened in this case. You couldn't really know that it's melee before trying and it kinda sucks about some items like this.

Because of how long it takes for mage to summon and control the elementals you should probably not use it during battles and instead have mage continue firing sling bullets when he has nothing else to do. The spell works pretty long though and you can use it before anticipated battle. If you have a druid in party then having him use elemental summoning will work better.

 

[Zeriel]

Yeah, I seem to recall the earth elemental not being very good, but Summon Fire was pretty bossy before tough-ish battles in the beginning-to-middle of BG2, Chapter 2 basically.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Integrated or not, it's an expansion. Had MotB continued the story of the main character, would it have made NWN2 a good game all of a sudden? The reason I separate main games from expansions is because the approach is vastly different. Main game's purpose is to appeal to the wide audience and be accessible, whereas in expansions developers are free to test new waters and try something different. Thus they should be evaluated separately. And yes, I agree that only Durlag's tower was good.

I agree expansions normally up the ante, I just don't think ToSC is all that much different from the base game to say "its good" and "BG isn't".
Other than Durlag's Tower all it really did was increase the XP cap and throw in a few subpar quests and other lore-less dungeons.

Well, the theme is different, the tone is different, and combat is much harder, which fits the atmosphere well. BG was a walk in the park. Often, literally, due to the colorful backgrounds. "What a great day, let's go out for a stroll, guys! Hey, look, a monster, let's kill it and gain some xp! Look, some evil-doers! Dibs on the +1 gear!"

- generic "boy/girl comes of age and discovers that he/she is special" setup. Words can't describe how much I hate such drivel.

And yet in Fallout you're the Vaultdweller, Fallout 2 you're The Chosen and Arcanum you're the Living One... all variations on the same theme, that you're somehow special and chosen (it bores me too, no matter how well they do it).

Not the same though. In Fallout you're the poor bastard who drew the short straw. In Fallout 2 it's just a silly tribal title. In Arcanum Virgil thinks that you're the living one because he misinterpreted the crash. You don't have any special powers and your inner awesomeness (or lack thereof) isn't the main theme of any of these games, whereas Bioware developed this shtick into their own trademark style.

>linear, unalterable story

That too.

>sandboxy style wilderness exploration
>very solid villain in Sarevok
>solid believeable plot that goes political, then diabolical (BG2 is harder to swallow)

I don't know. I thought the plot was idiotic. Complexity for the sake of impressing people, like the last 007 plot. Contaminated iron, really? From one mine? Why not contaminate bricks and then sit and watch the chaos as houses start falling apart, then start selling clean bricks and make a fortune?

>very large pool of recruitable NPCs for varied party compositions (25, I think)

A large pool of recruits doesn't mean much when they have the depth of cardboard cutouts.

Just a few reasons why I consider BG1 base to be quite good. I consider it superior to BG2, but that's a matter of taste - I prefer low level to epic and exploration to narrative drive.

I prefer low level adventures too, but I don't think it was done well in BG1. Anyway, a matter of taste, I agree.

 

[Metatron]

I agree expansions normally up the ante, I just don't think ToSC is all that much different from the base game to say "its good" and "BG isn't".
Other than Durlag's Tower all it really did was increase the XP cap and throw in a few subpar quests and other lore-less dungeons.

But when people are praising TotSC they're usually just talking about Durlag's Tower, right? And Durlags Tower bears much more resemblance to the dungeons in BG2 than the ones in the first BG. I mean, at least Durlag's and most BG2 dungeons have some sort of concept whereas the average vanilla BG1 place doesn't get any further than "eh yeah, there be kobolds under this bridge". But that's kind of BG1s problem in general, there's a lot to explore but almost none of it is particulary interesting.

Seriously, BG1 is still a decent rpg experience and it had its merits as the first IE game but I'd say BG2 is superior in every way: story, atmosphere, combat (being able to die of an arrow alone doesn't imply "interesting combat"), conversations (not like there's a lot of C&C in BG2 but at least it offers more than "end dialogue" most of the time), ... Unless you're really in explorefag mood and you desperatly want to clear tons of fog of war despite the fact that most maps have tons of generic encounters and are a bit too big for their own good I don't see how anyone can prefer BG1. Sure, there's a lot of freedom but what good is that when everything from companions to city design (I'd take Amn's "district" design over BGs rather lifeless "full" city any day of the week) feels shallow and underdeveloped and actually interesting encounters are few and far between.

 

[SCO]

A exaggeration. The city of baldur's gate is chockful of quests, and there are thematic ones too, like the whole thing around the thief's guild and the golden sun. The wildness areas have interesting set-pieces, like the 'queen' of spiders, which is even a BG2 hook, if you use charm (something never seen on bg2 except for 1 lousy quest), basilus, or even the guy with the basilisks. Good mods help BG1 a lot too (recommended: aurora and that lighthouse mini-mod).

Durlag's tower is _superior_ to all the dungeons on BG2 IMO. Mostly by not being only a fucking combat area, but having a backstory that is not 'Irenicus came and fucked it up'. Uth Nashta, or whatever the name was a good unrelated area though.
Although i must say, the expansion werewolf zone is getting underestimated here - it even has a moderately hard to navigate 'peaceful' solution. You need to run away and not kill the wolves when they get hostile i think though.
Speaking of Irenicus, can you say 'wildly-diverging story-line'? Anyone?


The end is that BG2 is quite similar to BG1, except that they added a lot more quests (many of them derpish), some more npc content (mostly romances), upgraded survivability of combat (decline) and railroaded you from chapter 2 onwards.
Also i much prefer the main story in BG to BG2. Sorry, i don't give a shit about elven sado-maso wizards. Though, considering how that got 'resolved' on Throne of Baal, maybe i shouldn't complain.

 

[DraQ]

Install BGT. Start with BG1 and play through it all. BG2 is surperior but BG1 is great as well.

If being barely better than oblivious is what it takes to pass for great these days...


Although, yeah, starting with BG1 (or having tabletop D&D background, I imagine) does ease you into all the spells and whatnot.

Other than that, BG1 has total of one redeeming quality (vs oblivious' zero) - there are meaningful intraparty interactions in it, by which I don't just mean party banter, but also some characters eventually ending at each other throats if forced to travel together.

NPC mods are where slash fanfic authors go to die.

If only...

HEALTH REGENERATION MAKES TRASH MOBS POINTLESS MASTURBATION

At least masturbation makes you feel good.

10m to lunch... sophistication wen´t out the window 50m ago.

You're chasing your lunch?

 

[Grunker]

Other than that, BG1 has total of one redeeming quality

I believe I named quite the list of redeeming qualities. Both you and VD who originally requested it are welcome to pick it apart at any juncture.

 

[Metatron]

A exaggeration. The city of baldur's gate is chockful of quests, and there are thematic ones too, like the whole thing around the thief's guild and the golden sun. The wildness areas have interesting set-pieces, like the 'queen' of spiders, which is even a BG2 hook, if you use charm (something never seen on bg2 except for 1 lousy quest), basilus, or even the guy with the basilisks. Good mods help BG1 a lot too (recommended: aurora and that lighthouse mini-mod).

Durlag's tower is _superior_ to all the dungeons on BG2 IMO. Mostly by not being only a fucking combat area, but having a backstory that is not 'Irenicus came and fucked it up'. Uth Nashta, or whatever the name was a good unrelated area though.
Although i must say, the expansion werewolf zone is getting underestimated here - it even has a moderately hard to navigate 'peaceful' solution. You need to run away and not kill the wolves when they get hostile i think though.
Speaking of Irenicus, can you say 'wildly-diverging story-line'? Anyone?


The end is that BG2 is quite similar to BG1, except that they added a lot more quests (many of them derpish), some more npc content (mostly romances), upgraded survivability of combat (decline) and railroaded you from chapter 2 onwards.
Also i much prefer the main story in BG to BG2. Sorry, i don't give a shit about elven sado-maso wizards. Though, considering how that got 'resolved' on Throne of Baal, maybe i shouldn't complain.

I never said there were absolutely no points of interest in BG1 (in fact, I still think it's decent game, just the worst of the IE bunch), but there were simply far too few compared to the pretty big maps (that were all the same size for some reason, sometimes I think the game was just a showcase for their pretty, new engine) they were in. In the end the whole thing contains way too much filler: filler-quests, filler companions and filler encounters. And lets face it, even an encounter like that spiderbitch who references Jon Irenicus is really nothing more than a short exposition followed by one of the harder battles in the game inside a small house. If that's supposed to be one of the most memorable and fleshed-out situations in BG1 it's kinda telling imo.

And your "it's all just Irenicus" claim is simply not true: the planar sphere, the cult below the temple district, d'Arnise Hold, the harpy HQ, the Windspear dungeons... There were plenty of area's that weren't directly or at least only peripherally Irenicus-related, even in the main storyline. In fact, I'd say there aren't a lot of rpgs that contain more side-content than BG2. That's one of its main selling points.

The storyline of BG1 isn't excruciatingly bad, it's just something that can be summarized in a few words. Sure, BG2 was a bit too much from zero to hero epic bullshit but the same can be said about the last chapters of BG1. Also, BG1s main quests has too many points where a conviently placed letter in the pocket of some named Seravok-goon points you in the right direction, I guess we should be glad Seravoks major minions all suffer from amnesia. And how could these nobles fall for such an obvious ruse anyway?

In the end: BG1 & 2 have about the same amount of playtime, in the first you spend the majority of the time hiking the countryside clearing the fog of war and killing random monsters, in the second you're usually actually doing something. I dunno about you but I kinda prefer the latter.

 

[octavius]

Good mods help BG1 a lot too (recommended: aurora and that lighthouse mini-mod).

What's the aurora mod?

 

[SCO]

The main component makes sell prices of stuff go way way down. The other is some npc that combines items into more powerful items, with a progression, but nothing really really ToB-in-BG1 level, just upgraded boots of speed with AC stuff.

 

[SCO]

The worst? Shit man.

Let me tell you how much i hate IWD2.

I HATE IWD2 THIS MUCH

 

[Metatron]

It's not that bad.

PS:T > BG2 > IWD > IWD2 > BG1.

Something like that.

I'm glad you answered to the most important part of my reply though.

 

[BobtheTree]

IWD2 > BG2

 

[uaciaut]

IWD's way better if you look at it purely as a dungeon crawler because it focuses so much on giving dungeons complexity in terms of encounters and dimension in terms of backstory. Otherwise i find it (at least the first, haven't got to play the second yet) pretty boring. Character interaction and progression, NPC writing, world diversity is better (this mostly because there's a lot more of it) in BG2.

Ust Nasha did feel like a great dungeon that ended this mythical "period away from the world" since it marked a pretty big leap in terms of power especially since you walk away with all that loot. The "main" dungeons of BG2 probably are the stronghold ones (you can go through with the actual stronghold depending on your class but you can/should do all of them for the rewards regardless) though and they were all ok imo.

 

[Average Manatee]

The worst? Shit man.

Let me tell you how much i hate IWD2.

I HATE IWD2 THIS MUCH

Why?

PS:T > BG2 = IWD2 > IWD > BG1

 

[suejak]

Name one fucking thing that's great about BG1 other than pretty backgrounds.

There are stat checks (like joining the Bandits) of which you can see a different side of things and meet Tazok. Does it mean or change anything? Fuck no, but I as a player can choose that (if I pass the stat check).

I love that this keeps getting repeated as though it turns Baldur's Gate into a good RPG with stat checks. This is literally one of a scarce handful of times in the entire game that you can do anything besides click through a dialogue or get stat-independent generic results. One instance of (surface-level) C&C doesn't make C&C a fundamental design element.

I think anyone who played BG1 expecting good choices and interactivity was astonished by the extent to which dialogues don't care who you are or what you say, and that the world doesn't change in response to your choices. It's absurd to pretend like it did on the basis of one design inconsistency where they suddenly decide to do a stat check.