Okay, I referenced this earlier, so...essentially that's my question. I really was not much of a fan of Baldur's Gate 1 for a variety of reasons, in fact, I almost didn't pick up BG2 because I was so underwhelmed by the first. But everybody seems to see it as this great landmark, so...why?
To explain why I was not a fan:
1) I found the game started very, very slowly. For a long time, almost every fight is the standard humanoid monsters (kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc.), which are all pretty much the same. The story wasn't pulling me in: why should I care about an iron shortage, anyway? Why don't they just melt down the ten million short swords and daggers and so on that I've been getting off all these corpses? I didn't really see that my character had much motivation to investigate except that there wasn't really much else to do.
2) Pathfinding. I got so tired of having to grab my characters to stop them from wandering off in the middle of battle. This was partly the Infinity Engine and partly because the designers seemed to delight in designing dungeons (Firewine Bridge being the most memorable) with very narrow spaces that you had to maneuver your characters through.
3) Drab environments. I suppose mines aren't very colorful, but still...again, the early game just bored me.
4) Irritating and shallow characters. Minsc and Boo got old really fast. Imoen sounded like she was about 8 years old. Jaheira was constantly complaining--people complain about Alistair whining? Khelgar was henpecked and seemed to have no other noticeable traits. Dynaheir was full of herself, but had no other notable rates. I can't even remember the names of any of the others. None of them had much of a backstory.
5) I suppose that requiring characters to sleep and eat regularly must have seemed like a good idea for immersion...but since you could only sleep in certain areas, I remember trapsing all over the place trying to find a spot to bed down for the night with my party members whining all the way. Ugh.
To my mind, Fallout 2 (which came out at the same time) was a much better game. Hell, I had more FUN playing Might & Magic VI because although it is basically hack & slash, it seemed to me BG was mostly about combat, too. It's actually possible to play Fallout 2 with very little fighting, by comparison.
But obviously I missed something because the game is so beloved. What was it?
Why did people the first Baldur's Gate game so much?
Débuté par
maxernst
, janv. 16 2010 02:58
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 06:47
I Valente I
-
- Members
- 343 messages
I'm sure other people will be able to give a better explanation but I'll give you a few reasons why I like it so much.
1.) First rpg I ever played. This shouldn't mean much to you but it does for me, since it was my introduction into this fascinating genre. It was also the first rpg to incorporate full D&D rules into a crpg( I'm pretty sure at least).
2.) It was a benchmark in rpg history. BG did a lot of things new, the party based combat, the D&D. Now the thing with benchmark games is that in retrospect, they have a lot of flaws, but what's more important is what it did right than what it did wrong. It's the reason games like BGII and KOTOR exist.
3.) Combat. Some of the Black Isle fanboys will say that combat isn't worthwile in rpgs and brag about how you can beat planescape: torment by talking your enemies to death...but I disagree. Baldur's Gate has the best combat in any rpg I've ever played. And I love rpg combat. Yes it was combat heavy...but since when is that a bad thing? Baldur's Gate forces me to enjoy one of the most innovative and best combat systems ever, hardly anything to complain about. Complain about the massive amounts of horrible combat in Jade Empire, not in Baldur's Gate.
4.) The characters. Perhaps they haven't aged well. Naturally BGII expanded on NPC's( which is what that game is known for), but what I liked about them was that they were n ot "henchmen." They were your comrades, your friends, your enemies. They had their own charm. It would be unfair to compare them to anything in this generation, because any party member in recent years were built off of the base that Baldur's Gate established. Edwin remains one of my favorite characters in Bioware's history.
5.) Nostalgia. Nostalgia means that thngs are always sweeter in memory than they were in actuality. This is true for a lot of things, it's true for Baldur's Gate. Maybe you played it recently, after hearing all this talk about Minsc & Boo, and the story. You were never going to enjoy it as much as everyone because you came in with massive expectations, whereas everyone else had none whatsoever. Nostalgia raises games to pedestals they maybe don't deserve, BUT there's a reason why so many people praise older games. They supplied fantastic memories. Games like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment are nowhere near as good as people make them out to be. But why should you base your opinion of something off of what other people think?
It's kind of like if you went back in time and watched Mohammed Ali and said "I dunno what the big deal is he's not so great.." or went back in time and watched Pele play and said "I don't get it, why is he so famous, Cristiano Ronaldo is like, 10 times better." It's for what they accomplished at the time.
1.) First rpg I ever played. This shouldn't mean much to you but it does for me, since it was my introduction into this fascinating genre. It was also the first rpg to incorporate full D&D rules into a crpg( I'm pretty sure at least).
2.) It was a benchmark in rpg history. BG did a lot of things new, the party based combat, the D&D. Now the thing with benchmark games is that in retrospect, they have a lot of flaws, but what's more important is what it did right than what it did wrong. It's the reason games like BGII and KOTOR exist.
3.) Combat. Some of the Black Isle fanboys will say that combat isn't worthwile in rpgs and brag about how you can beat planescape: torment by talking your enemies to death...but I disagree. Baldur's Gate has the best combat in any rpg I've ever played. And I love rpg combat. Yes it was combat heavy...but since when is that a bad thing? Baldur's Gate forces me to enjoy one of the most innovative and best combat systems ever, hardly anything to complain about. Complain about the massive amounts of horrible combat in Jade Empire, not in Baldur's Gate.
4.) The characters. Perhaps they haven't aged well. Naturally BGII expanded on NPC's( which is what that game is known for), but what I liked about them was that they were n ot "henchmen." They were your comrades, your friends, your enemies. They had their own charm. It would be unfair to compare them to anything in this generation, because any party member in recent years were built off of the base that Baldur's Gate established. Edwin remains one of my favorite characters in Bioware's history.
5.) Nostalgia. Nostalgia means that thngs are always sweeter in memory than they were in actuality. This is true for a lot of things, it's true for Baldur's Gate. Maybe you played it recently, after hearing all this talk about Minsc & Boo, and the story. You were never going to enjoy it as much as everyone because you came in with massive expectations, whereas everyone else had none whatsoever. Nostalgia raises games to pedestals they maybe don't deserve, BUT there's a reason why so many people praise older games. They supplied fantastic memories. Games like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment are nowhere near as good as people make them out to be. But why should you base your opinion of something off of what other people think?
It's kind of like if you went back in time and watched Mohammed Ali and said "I dunno what the big deal is he's not so great.." or went back in time and watched Pele play and said "I don't get it, why is he so famous, Cristiano Ronaldo is like, 10 times better." It's for what they accomplished at the time.
#3
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 11:19
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
1 - The reason everyone could not simply melt down short swords is because the iron shortage was only part of the problem. Mulahey was tainting ore coming out of Nashkel with chemicals. The solution he used degraded ore upon contact; making any newly forged weapons and implements brittle. On top of that these brittle creations spread the chemical to any other iron weapon or tool they came in contact with. Think of it spreading like a pandemic; except it only affects iron. Anything made of iron that was not brought into contact with tainted items was stolen by bandits whenever caravans tried to move product. So no, there was no easy solution without at a minimum clearing Nashkel's mines and stopping the bandit raids.
I admit, BG's storyline does not try hard to pull you in at first. It subtly urges you to visit Nashkel through NPCs and rumors, but you can easily avoid the town for a long while. That was part of BG's charm though. Being free to explore the various areas on a whim, rather than getting led by the nose to your next destination. You more or less fall into the main plot; whether you seek it out early on or complete a bunch of sidequests first.
2 - I cannot defend this. Pathfinding in Infinity Engine games has always been awful. BG2 improved on this somewhat, but it was still pretty bad.
3 - This I disagree with. For its time I found those environments vibrant and colorful. Caves and mines looked drab because they are caves and mines.
You tromp through lots of forests in BG1 that are quite picturesque. The environments are not nearly as detailed as those of BG2 or Icewind Dale, but for a first effort it was more than passable. Candlekeep for example looked anything but drab to me. Baldur's Gate itself had lots of small details. Cobbled streets, houses and stone structures, and various peasants all over the place. House interiors were decent too. Environment art was a bit sloppy compared to sequels, but it was hardly bad for its time. Fallout 1&2 were drabber in my opinion.
4 - Khelgar was a NWN2 character.
Each of those NPCs had a background if you checked in their character sheet. There was not a lot there, but it was something. You are free to believe Fallout 2 was a much better game, and in some areas I certainly agree. NPC depth was not one of them. Fallout 2 NPCs had even less background and personality than BG's characters. That said, it is true BG's NPCs were shallow. They had little to say outside of rare interactions with each other and random voice comments expressing contentment or displeasure at your reputation status. BioWare took their first real step toward their current RPG model in BG2 in my opinion; although you could see subtle hints of that direction in BG1.
5 - Sleeping was the only requirement, and honestly it was no big deal. You needed to sleep anyway to replenish your party's spells. Chances were you needed to sleep for that alone long before your party starts whining about being tired. In my eyes fatigue was a non issue.
When I first bought BG it came bundled with a copy of Fallout. I ended up playing Fallout more at first because its rules were easier to grasp and it had the novelty of a setting I was not accustomed to after coming from a JRPG laden console background. I loved the freedom of exploration and coolness of using guns instead of swords. Then I finally got around to BG and took it seriously. The game was harder and felt restricting, but everything just... came together in a way I did not expect. It took longer for me to get into it than Fallout, but once I did I found it had so much more personality even though the storyline itself was not nearly as good.
I cannot say why I thought BG was a great game beyond that it was better than the sum of its parts. It had many flaws. But there was a certain quality. A feeling... that makes me love it. It is not merely nostalgia; hence my present tense. I play through the entire series at least once a year. Whereas I cannot remember my last trip through Fallout. It does offer the breadth of problem solving options Fallout 2 did. It is not possible to go through it without killing. But that is as much a fault of the D&D rules it was based on as game design. Quite frankly I enjoyed everything else so much it never bothered me... and I have no interest in playing pacifists anyway. Fallout 2 offered many alternative quest solutions, had a deeper story with variable consequences for areas you visit, and more diverse and complex character building options. But its environments were drab and the graphics were largely unchaged from Fallout; making it an uglier game compared to Baldur's Gate. Its NPCs also had at best, as much depth as BG's characters. On the whole, that makes Fallout 2 a far better role-playing game than Baldur's Gate. That does not necessarily make it more enjoyable experience. Ultimately, that is what gaming comes down to, and something about Baldur's Gate just makes it more fun. Not much else to it in my case.
I admit, BG's storyline does not try hard to pull you in at first. It subtly urges you to visit Nashkel through NPCs and rumors, but you can easily avoid the town for a long while. That was part of BG's charm though. Being free to explore the various areas on a whim, rather than getting led by the nose to your next destination. You more or less fall into the main plot; whether you seek it out early on or complete a bunch of sidequests first.
2 - I cannot defend this. Pathfinding in Infinity Engine games has always been awful. BG2 improved on this somewhat, but it was still pretty bad.
3 - This I disagree with. For its time I found those environments vibrant and colorful. Caves and mines looked drab because they are caves and mines.
You tromp through lots of forests in BG1 that are quite picturesque. The environments are not nearly as detailed as those of BG2 or Icewind Dale, but for a first effort it was more than passable. Candlekeep for example looked anything but drab to me. Baldur's Gate itself had lots of small details. Cobbled streets, houses and stone structures, and various peasants all over the place. House interiors were decent too. Environment art was a bit sloppy compared to sequels, but it was hardly bad for its time. Fallout 1&2 were drabber in my opinion.4 - Khelgar was a NWN2 character.
Each of those NPCs had a background if you checked in their character sheet. There was not a lot there, but it was something. You are free to believe Fallout 2 was a much better game, and in some areas I certainly agree. NPC depth was not one of them. Fallout 2 NPCs had even less background and personality than BG's characters. That said, it is true BG's NPCs were shallow. They had little to say outside of rare interactions with each other and random voice comments expressing contentment or displeasure at your reputation status. BioWare took their first real step toward their current RPG model in BG2 in my opinion; although you could see subtle hints of that direction in BG1.5 - Sleeping was the only requirement, and honestly it was no big deal. You needed to sleep anyway to replenish your party's spells. Chances were you needed to sleep for that alone long before your party starts whining about being tired. In my eyes fatigue was a non issue.
When I first bought BG it came bundled with a copy of Fallout. I ended up playing Fallout more at first because its rules were easier to grasp and it had the novelty of a setting I was not accustomed to after coming from a JRPG laden console background. I loved the freedom of exploration and coolness of using guns instead of swords. Then I finally got around to BG and took it seriously. The game was harder and felt restricting, but everything just... came together in a way I did not expect. It took longer for me to get into it than Fallout, but once I did I found it had so much more personality even though the storyline itself was not nearly as good.
I cannot say why I thought BG was a great game beyond that it was better than the sum of its parts. It had many flaws. But there was a certain quality. A feeling... that makes me love it. It is not merely nostalgia; hence my present tense. I play through the entire series at least once a year. Whereas I cannot remember my last trip through Fallout. It does offer the breadth of problem solving options Fallout 2 did. It is not possible to go through it without killing. But that is as much a fault of the D&D rules it was based on as game design. Quite frankly I enjoyed everything else so much it never bothered me... and I have no interest in playing pacifists anyway. Fallout 2 offered many alternative quest solutions, had a deeper story with variable consequences for areas you visit, and more diverse and complex character building options. But its environments were drab and the graphics were largely unchaged from Fallout; making it an uglier game compared to Baldur's Gate. Its NPCs also had at best, as much depth as BG's characters. On the whole, that makes Fallout 2 a far better role-playing game than Baldur's Gate. That does not necessarily make it more enjoyable experience. Ultimately, that is what gaming comes down to, and something about Baldur's Gate just makes it more fun. Not much else to it in my case.
Modifié par Seagloom, 16 janvier 2010 - 12:21 .
#4
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 11:59
Humanoid_Taifun
-
- Members
- 1 444 messages
"Omitting verbs now a meme"...
Baldur's Gate is in part very popular even today because as the first big 'modern' RPG it practically revived the entire genre.
For many people who say that BG (or BG2) is the greatest game ever these two games were the first real RPGs in their lives.
Baldur's Gate is in part very popular even today because as the first big 'modern' RPG it practically revived the entire genre.
For many people who say that BG (or BG2) is the greatest game ever these two games were the first real RPGs in their lives.
Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 16 janvier 2010 - 12:00 .
#5
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 03:18
Ponce de Leon
-
- Members
- 4 030 messages
I agree with H_T. It's actually pretty much one of the first games I've ever seen that you can actually role-play. I mean, my first game was Diablo, being defined an RPG. But what could you actually role play? Whatever the class, you still had a clickfest.
Baldur's Gate will have different aspects of gameplay, for example, a paladin may not steal things in a house, while a thief will. Of course, this doesn't actually limit your gameplay, you can still be a thieving paladin if you wish to be one, but you get out of what you can call role playing.
On that point, I think Sten would be an excellent role player.
Baldur's Gate will have different aspects of gameplay, for example, a paladin may not steal things in a house, while a thief will. Of course, this doesn't actually limit your gameplay, you can still be a thieving paladin if you wish to be one, but you get out of what you can call role playing.
On that point, I think Sten would be an excellent role player.
#6
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 06:30
Skellimancer
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
maxernst wrote...
Okay, I referenced this earlier, so...essentially that's my question. I really was not much of a fan of Baldur's Gate 1 for a variety of reasons, in fact, I almost didn't pick up BG2 because I was so underwhelmed by the first. But everybody seems to see it as this great landmark, so...why?
To explain why I was not a fan:
1) I found the game started very, very slowly. For a long time, almost every fight is the standard humanoid monsters (kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc.), which are all pretty much the same. The story wasn't pulling me in: why should I care about an iron shortage, anyway? Why don't they just melt down the ten million short swords and daggers and so on that I've been getting off all these corpses? I didn't really see that my character had much motivation to investigate except that there wasn't really much else to do.
2) Pathfinding. I got so tired of having to grab my characters to stop them from wandering off in the middle of battle. This was partly the Infinity Engine and partly because the designers seemed to delight in designing dungeons (Firewine Bridge being the most memorable) with very narrow spaces that you had to maneuver your characters through.
3) Drab environments. I suppose mines aren't very colorful, but still...again, the early game just bored me.
4) Irritating and shallow characters. Minsc and Boo got old really fast. Imoen sounded like she was about 8 years old. Jaheira was constantly complaining--people complain about Alistair whining? Khelgar was henpecked and seemed to have no other noticeable traits. Dynaheir was full of herself, but had no other notable rates. I can't even remember the names of any of the others. None of them had much of a backstory.
5) I suppose that requiring characters to sleep and eat regularly must have seemed like a good idea for immersion...but since you could only sleep in certain areas, I remember trapsing all over the place trying to find a spot to bed down for the night with my party members whining all the way. Ugh.
To my mind, Fallout 2 (which came out at the same time) was a much better game. Hell, I had more FUN playing Might & Magic VI because although it is basically hack & slash, it seemed to me BG was mostly about combat, too. It's actually possible to play Fallout 2 with very little fighting, by comparison.
But obviously I missed something because the game is so beloved. What was it?
Best implimentation of the AD&D rules evah!
1. exploring pulled me in from the start, ws a while before i went to the mines.
2. Pathfinding is hell in groups, thats why i solo
3. Drab? did you turn your monitor on?
4. see 2
5. ? you don't think the characters should rest?
#7
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 06:47
amrose2
-
- Members
- 476 messages
The same reason alot of people swear Final Fantasy 7 is the best console RPG: Nostalgia
For alot of folks Baldur's Gate the first RPG they ever played, or one of the greats from a time where there weren't many good games. The insane amount of options and dialogue it was able to explore sets up an unrealistic standard for today's games. People understandably pine for this, but in today's games its impossible.
For alot of folks Baldur's Gate the first RPG they ever played, or one of the greats from a time where there weren't many good games. The insane amount of options and dialogue it was able to explore sets up an unrealistic standard for today's games. People understandably pine for this, but in today's games its impossible.
Modifié par amrose2, 16 janvier 2010 - 06:47 .
#8
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 07:03
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
I still play BG1 now, in fact I was playing it while waiting for DA:O. It had an interesting story, was one of the first of it's type of CRPG (most others were ones like the Beholder games or Pool of Radiance for those who remember them), and while it was slow at starting off I liked that, not everything has to start off on fire, made it more thoughtful as you slowly worked out that there was more going on.
The game was quite open once you left candlekeep, and is arguable more open and less linear than the games that followed it, with a strong emphasis on exploring to just see some of the weird stuff they had put out in some of those places.
And as for the characters being shallow I'm sure my sig shows my stance on that line. Sure, they were not well developed in terms of character progression, but for the times it was a step up and opened the doors for the later games.
And as for the environments being drab, they seemed quite colourful to me, they gave more personality and the music just set the scene and helped my imagination to fill in the blanks.
I noticed you didn't mention Planscape: Torment? Did you never try that out at all?
The game was quite open once you left candlekeep, and is arguable more open and less linear than the games that followed it, with a strong emphasis on exploring to just see some of the weird stuff they had put out in some of those places.
And as for the characters being shallow I'm sure my sig shows my stance on that line.
Sure, they were not well developed in terms of character progression, but for the times it was a step up and opened the doors for the later games.And as for the environments being drab, they seemed quite colourful to me, they gave more personality and the music just set the scene and helped my imagination to fill in the blanks.
I noticed you didn't mention Planscape: Torment? Did you never try that out at all?
#9
Guest_Colenda_*
Posté 16 janvier 2010 - 08:05
Guest_Colenda_*
Guest_Colenda_*
-
- Guests
A lot of what people enjoy about BG2 and later Bioware games isn't present in BG1 - the romances, the focus on character. But I still think there's a lot to appreciate:
1) Plot. The ultimate evil is in the background, and isn't really an ultimate evil. More a psychological impulse. The main baddies are business men.
2) Structure - the game is a nice development of the bildungsroman. Start at Candlekeep, go out into the big wide world, return home to find it changed. etc. I just find it very satisfying. Moreso than BG2 where the game seems to sputter out after the Underdark.
3) Freedom - you can go almost wherever you like
4) Scope - the game-world is absolutely huge
5) Charm - no one could say that BG1 has first-class characterisation, but it really isn't that interested in character. The game is full of eccentric NPCs and tongue in cheek humour. The graveyard in Dragon Age, for example, has got to be a tribute to the graveyard in Nashkel.
6) Boots of Speed for everyone! Thank you, Gatekeeper.
I also found BG quite slow when I first played it, after BG2. But then I just let myself relax into the experience. Maybe I'll send my characters haring off to pursue the main plot in Baldur's Gate, maybe I'll send them wandering through a meadow full of wild flowers and see what turns up...It's a very easy-going game. Now excuse me, the screen looks misty and I can't see to type. Damn, I knew it was a bad idea to cut the onions for dinner and post at the same time.
1) Plot. The ultimate evil is in the background, and isn't really an ultimate evil. More a psychological impulse. The main baddies are business men.
2) Structure - the game is a nice development of the bildungsroman. Start at Candlekeep, go out into the big wide world, return home to find it changed. etc. I just find it very satisfying. Moreso than BG2 where the game seems to sputter out after the Underdark.
3) Freedom - you can go almost wherever you like
4) Scope - the game-world is absolutely huge
5) Charm - no one could say that BG1 has first-class characterisation, but it really isn't that interested in character. The game is full of eccentric NPCs and tongue in cheek humour. The graveyard in Dragon Age, for example, has got to be a tribute to the graveyard in Nashkel.
6) Boots of Speed for everyone! Thank you, Gatekeeper.
I also found BG quite slow when I first played it, after BG2. But then I just let myself relax into the experience. Maybe I'll send my characters haring off to pursue the main plot in Baldur's Gate, maybe I'll send them wandering through a meadow full of wild flowers and see what turns up...It's a very easy-going game. Now excuse me, the screen looks misty and I can't see to type. Damn, I knew it was a bad idea to cut the onions for dinner and post at the same time.
Modifié par Colenda, 16 janvier 2010 - 08:08 .
