60 réponses à ce sujet

[Narelda]

I've been playing BGII every year since I bought it back in 2002. I actually just started a new run a week ago. Even though it's that old, I think the infinity engine has aged well compared to many other engines of that time. With wide screen patches and higher resolution it doesn't look too bad even now. The character sprites are maybe the only thing that shows its age.

If you do feel like starting, I'd actually recommend BGII over BG. BG needs some heavy modding imo to make it decent and the story itself isn't as good or epic as in BGII.

I guess it comes down to what you want from your game. BGII would be more of a book-like experience where you'll have to read a lot of text and imagine the world.

[Pseron Wyrd]

As we can see from looking at the screen in phordicus's post, Baldur's Gate is a fantastic-looking game. I began playing it again before DA:O was released and I was amazed at the quality and detail in the artwork. The player is unable to rotate the camera and the character models are not as detailed but apart from those two things I think BG looks as good as any 3D game I've seen.



What ruins the Baldur's Gate series for me is not the graphics but the 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

[Darrian3p]

westiex9 wrote...

Baldurs gae had an awesome storyline But Dragon age provides a far more complex and reactive world, Modern roleplaying has finally entered a mature stage in which morality is grey and choices have far Reaching consequences. Without the games of the past Dragon age wouldnt be here but to say the past is better then what we have now is a very flawed statement.

You're wrong.

[westiex9]

Darrian3p wrote...

westiex9 wrote...

Baldurs gae had an awesome storyline But Dragon age provides a far more complex and reactive world, Modern roleplaying has finally entered a mature stage in which morality is grey and choices have far Reaching consequences. Without the games of the past Dragon age wouldnt be here but to say the past is better then what we have now is a very flawed statement.

You're wrong.

If thats your opinion your welcome to it, But i think dragon age is a superior title to the baldurs gate series and i have not yet had any reason to think otherwise. 

[biomag]

Pseron Wyrd wrote...

As we can see from looking at the screen in phordicus's post, Baldur's Gate is a fantastic-looking game. I began playing it again before DA:O was released and I was amazed at the quality and detail in the artwork. The player is unable to rotate the camera and the character models are not as detailed but apart from those two things I think BG looks as good as any 3D game I've seen.

What ruins the Baldur's Gate series for me is not the graphics but the 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

Yep. D&D rules are simply the worst that can happen to a PC-RPG game. They are just limiting your possibilities and the magic-system is just plain wrong. It can't get worse. Spells are terrible and the whole way it works with rest and available spells...

Also D&D is just stupid when it comes to combat mechanics. You are hard to hit when you were a heavy armor? WTF? You need strength to hit a target? Thats is simply as wrong as it gets. DA:O is far better when it comes to fighting. The weapon-styles make also far more sense than what BG had (why is defending with one sword easier than with two? While training escrima I made completely different expierences...<_<).


The depth of the game isn't that much greater than with DA:O. Neither one of the BG games has more of it than DA:O, just them both together do the trick... and if you are counting the forgotten realms into the content, well sorry, that wasn't BioWares achievment and I am happy to see a game with some different background. I really liked the elder scrolls world far more than the forgotten realms and I enjoy some fresh background like DA:O has.

The characters didn't have more depth either. Thats pure nostalgy. You know them now for a whole decade and for sure they seem more real to most than the new DA:O companions.



Would a replay the BG-series and enjoy it? Yes for sure, even though I hate things like level-draining vampires (just a pain in the a** to restore the spells after such an attack) and the whole magic-religion-system. The graphic isn't important to me, I care more about the story and BG had a really good one. Its a matter of taste which characters and story you like better, but IMO both games were good.

Modifié par biomag, 01 janvier 2010 - 11:04 .

[westiex9]

I loved baldurs gate and Neverwinter nights but the forgotten realms just seems so much less dark and compelling then Thedas and the whole morality system in D&D has never appealed to me.

[AsheraII]

I've played BG when it was released (and the talking skull game as well for that matter), and it's still a good game if you're interrested in party-based RPG's with a strong tactical component.

The graphics are not as good as DA:O's, but still very recognizable. Just a bit woody, but that's what you get with pixelanimations instead ofproper rendering. But, the graphics are still good enough to see past them during the most important moments, aka fights.

Characters are definitely less "deep" than their DA:O counterparts. That's the curse of using the AD&D alignment ruleset. But I must admit, they did try to push the constraints to their limits. Some characters are interesting, others funny, and, like in DA:O, some don't get along with each other. Must say I turned down my volume level after hearing "Go for the eyes Boooo" for the twenthieth time, some "funny" things are just too extreme to stay funny for long, and become a nuisance.

There is also nothing subtle about playing an evil character. For example: just do bad things, like killing a few randomers, and the guards running to your position will make it pretty obvious what the game thinks of bad people. And yes, I say "evil" character. There's hardly room for such a thing as "selfish" or "enthousiastic" You're either good, neutral or evil, and you're either lawful, neutral or chaotic. This really affects your abilities and party composition. Play a Paladin, and you won't be able to keep Imoen in your party for long. Unless you turn evil yourself, and effectively become a rather limited warrior. Opposites do not get along, at all. Whereas DA:O does allow for magnetism between such polarities.

As for mods: play without them, unless it's something like a mod to play it on a widescreen if you have one. I always find claims that "this or that mod brings the game closer to the developers intentions" rather presumptious. Parts of it may, but overall, it's very doubtful. There are usually good reasons why the developers didn't include such things themselves. At best you'll find some ex-developer agreeing to ideas he/she had as well that were scrapped during the course of developement. He/she would of course approve, but the team as a whole probably had their own reasons not to want it.



Overall, BG is still a good game, it's good enough to look past the pixel graphics. But I personally feel DA:O is of a next generation for overall gameplay already.

[StarMars]

jorghis wrote...

StarMars wrote...

You're clearly not putting the tech differences aside when comparing these 2 games.

One of the reasons people liked those games so much is that they were so good relative to everything else at the time.

But that's how it should be. It shows how the game stood out above the rest. You should only compare a game with the others during the time of its release. That's why we have Best Games of All Time and BG2 is always on the lists.

Just imagine BG2 with pretty, 3D characters and game world and voiced-out dialogues. Now THAT would be amazing and DAO would surely pale in comparison considering BG2 had more classes and options.

It is not just graphical technology which has advanced.  Gamers who care about storylines have higher expectations for the creativity that goes into a game.  The most popular RPG of 1997 ( a year before BG1) was Diablo, a game with basically non-existant character development and plot.  While there are still games where the storyline was clearly an afterthought out there, fans of story driven games have several titles they can sink their teeth into these days.  There were very few other games which even attempted to develop characters backstories to the degree that BG1 and 2 did in the late 90s.  That is what I was trying to say when I claimed that BG1 and 2 were so exceptional relative to the other stuff that was out there at the time.

Exactly what I'm saying. BG2 was very innovative during its time. Don't get me wrong. DAO is one of the best games this year and I love both games. But don't say that BG2 doesn't stand up very well to DAO because BG2 did what others didn't during its time. Games evolve and you can't just say that the modern games are better than the old ones. Yes, they look and sound better now but that's being biased in favor of more powerful game engines and hardware. We might as well say that all new games are better than the old ones. You should look at games based on how well they perform against the others during their time. And BG2 clearly outshined everything else during its time.

...that they were so good relative to everything else at the time

Amazing for its time, but I honestly think...

[Kevin Lynch]

Roll on over to the old BG/BG2 forums at BioWare and read some of what folks are doing with the game even today. Still lots of activity, especially with the mods that have kept the game fresh.



And since it's off-topic for DA:O, this thread's in the Off Topic forum now.

[Ponce de Leon]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

Roll on over to the old BG/BG2 forums at BioWare and read some of what folks are doing with the game even today. Still lots of activity, especially with the mods that have kept the game fresh.

And since it's off-topic for DA:O, this thread's in the Off Topic forum now.

I agree... just try not to be scared of the first reply you get. We* are also a bunch of weirdos

*By "we" I think me and some other members. Not all of them are weird...

[Skellimancer]

biomag wrote...

Yep. D&D rules are simply the worst that can happen to a PC-RPG game. They are just limiting your possibilities and the magic-system is just plain wrong. It can't get worse. Spells are terrible and the whole way it works with rest and available spells...

Also D&D is just stupid when it comes to combat mechanics. You are hard to hit when you were a heavy armor? WTF? You need strength to hit a target? Thats is simply as wrong as it gets. DA:O is far better when it comes to fighting. The weapon-styles make also far more sense than what BG had (why is defending with one sword easier than with two? While training escrima I made completely different expierences...<_<).


The depth of the game isn't that much greater than with DA:O. Neither one of the BG games has more of it than DA:O, just them both together do the trick... and if you are counting the forgotten realms into the content, well sorry, that wasn't BioWares achievment and I am happy to see a game with some different background. I really liked the elder scrolls world far more than the forgotten realms and I enjoy some fresh background like DA:O has.

The characters didn't have more depth either. Thats pure nostalgy. You know them now for a whole decade and for sure they seem more real to most than the new DA:O companions.



Would a replay the BG-series and enjoy it? Yes for sure, even though I hate things like level-draining vampires (just a pain in the a** to restore the spells after such an attack) and the whole magic-religion-system. The graphic isn't important to me, I care more about the story and BG had a really good one. Its a matter of taste which characters and story you like better, but IMO both games were good.

[MerinTB]

If you haven't played a game based on 2nd Edition D&D rules, and you are coming at BG after playing DAO . . .



I'm going to lay money on you NOT enjoying it. If you can force your way through the game (and it's far superior, IMO, sequel, BG2), you may indeed appreciate the story, the NPCs, the banter, and so on -



but the gameplay will probably leave you very bored.



BG1 (unmodded) is a slow, ponderous experience that I could not get through back in the high of my Black Isle / CRPG worshipping craze (i.e. when BG was released.) It is so SLOW to play. It takes forever to walk anywhere, you might as well be playing Everquest.



1st level Magic Users and Clerics are all but useless - you are carrying them with your fighters until you get to about 4th level, so you aren't just firing off your spell then resting for 8 hours. You can easily get one-hit killed by goblins (ok, your fighter might take 2 hits.)



Of course, here I'm talking about that frustration and I've been playing Bard's Tale for the last few days where you have to keep making new 1st level characters because they WILL be killed repeatedly in that game and you kind of have to LUCK into getting so characters to high enough level to not constantly die (game was designed expecting you to port characters over from Ultima 3 or other such games.)



Back to BG - you may well appreciate it. But the graphics will most likely not be what makes the game not fun for you, if you find it not fun. I will say the biggest barrier to enjoying BG1 is the slow, plodding gameplay and the fact that low-level 2nd ED D&D characters really bite in a combat-oriented game.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

biomag wrote...
The weapon-styles make also far more sense than what BG had (why is defending with one sword easier than with two? While training escrima I made completely different expierences...<_<).

Quoted for Awesomeness.
In DA:O you don't practise with weapons at all, yet you are equally proficient with all of them (and even warriors don't feel like specializing in say... swords)?
D&D has it's problems, but DA:O is no closer to the truth.

[keesio74]

MerinTB wrote...

If you haven't played a game based on 2nd Edition D&D rules, and you are coming at BG after playing DAO . . .

I

I played (and really enjoyed) those SSI AD&D gold box games (Pool or Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, etc). Were those 2nd ed or 1st? And because I was familiar with AD&D, it was really cool to see all those items and creatures in my AD%D books in the game.

[Ponce de Leon]

You can't really say spells are useless for first level casters. I mean, look at sleep and blindness. Two of the most seriously overpowered spells around.

Sleep will take targets in one area on the ground for 5 rounds per level. 5 rounds being real life 30 seconds. So a level 5 mage would knock on the ground some 20 enemies for 2 minutes and a half. Blindness is even better as a spell, since it will basically make your archers immune to any attack until the effect runs off. You can kill GORION that way!!

As for clerics, they get Sanctuary. Clerics can be better thieves than the actual thief class that way. They are invisible to the eye of the enemy for one minute, and can open doors as well as take things from chests and other containers. This way you can reach level 4 with ease.

Of course, many strong spells from the first pages will only be strong on later levels, like Magic missile, doing some 25 damage averagely on level 9.

[jasonirma]

I'm playing BG1 right now along side DA:O. I'm also playing Planescape. This thread is really full of some great, well-reasoned opinions.



But, while many tout the amazing awesomesauce of the older BlackIsle games, it is worth noting that one of the fundamental reasons gamers have a hard time going "backward" in time is not just the graphics of the game, but the INTERFACE that makes the difference.



Yes, I've modded BG1 & 2 (I prefer Weidu over Tutu) and the games don't look as old as they actually are. That said, the GUI is unwieldy and adds a layer of frustration to the gaming experience.



A good modern-day comparison would be the inventory system in DA:O vs. the inventory system in Mass Effect. ME's interface was unnecessarily clunky requiring quite a few clicks to gauge the quality of a weapon, armor, etc. It made things very difficult and ultimately left me less excited about that game compared wtih DA:O. In contrast, with the tooltip mod, DA:O's interface is a breeze. It acts as a conduit of gameplay rather than a huge speedbump.



Interestingly, Planescape's interface is very straightforward for the most part and actually is one of the best in the genre. Notwithstanding, the dialogue in P:T is far more bizarre and compelling, IMHO.



But, like it or not, I think a game is the sum total of all of its parts. A gorgeous game without a story is useless, a fugly game without any graphical polish is more frustrating than a choose-your-own-ending kids book, and a moderately graphically enjoyable moderately story driven game sucks altogether.



When you can combine the best of all things, you've got magic. And that magic is rare...Fortunately, I think DA:O is on that path to greatness and spares little compromise. I for one applaud the envelope being pushed to its maximum. The more immersive the better.

[Default137]

keesio74 wrote...

I finished my first playthrough of DAO and absolutely loved it. One of the best CRPGs I've ever played. However on this forum I've heard people going on about BG/BG2 and how that is still the best CRPG. Googling around, it seems that many people (not just in this forum) still feel the same way. I've never played BG or BG2 (actually DAO is the first CRPG I've picked up in quite some time) so I'm considering trying it out to see what all the hype is about. However I'm wondering if I will get disappointed simply because the games are so old. I saw some screenshots and obviously they just can't compare to graphics these days. So even if the story and gamplay is awesome, just the dated engine itself might bring the rest of the game down for me. What do you think? Is it still worth the spin? But I guess for fans of BG/BG2 it will be hard to say, cause I think it is very different for someone who has fond nostalgic memories of an old game to be able to go back and play it and enjoy it vs someone who has never played it to try it out and go "man this looks old". I recently replayed Might and Magic 3 - Isles of Terra (1993) and loved it again but I'm sure someone new to the game would be like "what the heck, this looks crappy".

You'll probably like BG2/ToB, but dislike BG1/TotSC.

BG2 and Throne of Bhaal aged AMAZINGLY well, the graphics are really not bad at all, they look rather simplistic in screenshots, but when you actually get in game, you don't notice them, because they are very sharp, and it feels like you are in a movie/book somewhat, they fit the game very well, and with mods to increase resolution, they really only get better, add in party banter, and its just such a great experience that pulls you in.

With BG1 it have not aged as well, BG1 is a very bland game without specific mods, a desire to beat it, or a liking to dungeon crawling, there is very little talking between your party in the retail version, very few interesting quests, and you have to stumble around in the dark to find many things, however, if you get the NPC Banter pack and the Resolution mod, it does make it a little better.

If you want my honest opinion?

Download PS:T, and full install it, then put in the widescreen mod, and the fixpacks to make everything work dandy, then full install BG1 and Tales of the Sword Coast, MAKE SURE YOU GET THE NPC BANTER PACK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, and also download Tutu/Trilogy/Weidu, and the Resolution pack. After thats all set up, download BG2/TOB, and get the widescreen mod.

Thats the very basic stuff you'd need to enjoy the three best games ever made >.>

Modifié par Default137, 01 janvier 2010 - 11:07 .

[darlarosa]

It's one of my favorite games, and I thuroughly enjoyed it. I recommend playing the games straight through vanilla(without mods) then go back and download some of the mods because they add a completely new experiance to the game.

[fanman72]

Baldur's Gate series was great.....for its time. It's a huge achievement in the for RPGs but the truth is sent it was made a decade ago things have simply gotten better. Graphics, even the selling points of BG (Party interactions, etc) are far superior in Dragon Age. Baldur's Gate it was one of the best RPGs i've ever played but if i had only heard about it now I wouldnt' be able to play it. Technological advancements, voice acting, etc. has made games like Dragon far superior.

[Ponce de Leon]

Shavon wrote...

OP, I was thinking of doing the same thing. I love Bioware games, and want to eventually play all of them. But I've heard BG isn't supported by Windows 7. Does anyone know if I can download something, perhaps an emulator so I can play this? (sry of my question reeks of newb-ness. Guilty as charged. I am a console player thinking of switching to pc)

My brother has windows 7 and installed BG1 some 2 weeks ago. It works perfectly.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Why are you simply comparing which is the better game. The Baldur's Gate story is an exciting experience, and if you are unable to enjoy it just because you miss your new 3D graphics or modern controls... then I'd just call you spoiled.

When I was your age, we had no video games at all! When we wanted to have fun, we'd meet up with 20 guys or so and imagine playing soccer (an actual ball still being too expensive back then). And I never complained, even though I never managed to shoot a single goal (the eternal keeper was a big bully and I'd never have dared even suggesting a success against him).

[Ponce de Leon]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Why are you simply comparing which is the better game. The Baldur's Gate story is an exciting experience, and if you are unable to enjoy it just because you miss your new 3D graphics or modern controls... then I'd just call you spoiled.
When I was your age, we had no video games at all! When we wanted to have fun, we'd meet up with 20 guys or so and imagine playing soccer (an actual ball still being too expensive back then). And I never complained, even though I never managed to shoot a single goal (the eternal keeper was a big bully and I'd never have dared even suggesting a success against him).

And I thought you had less than 30 years... Now I think you have at least 70...