Totally relevant topic for these forums as the Dragon Age team have been trying to figure this one out for years but to no avail.
What made the Baldur's Gate series so great?
Débuté par
Maiden Crowe
, janv. 26 2014 05:54
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:17
Pasquale1234
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Player agency.
Minimal interruptions of gameplay for cinematics and enforced pacing.
The ability to handcraft your own story, or at least actively co-create it via emergent narrative.
Blank slate, rather than pre-defined character provides optimal character definition and role-playing opportunities.
Minimal interruptions of gameplay for cinematics and enforced pacing.
The ability to handcraft your own story, or at least actively co-create it via emergent narrative.
Blank slate, rather than pre-defined character provides optimal character definition and role-playing opportunities.
Modifié par Pasquale1234, 26 janvier 2014 - 06:19 .
#3
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:22
Exaltation
-
- Members
- 1 379 messages
The only Bioware game i played is Dragon Age series lol,didn't like the others.
#4
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:27
Iron Fist
-
- Members
- 2 580 messages
Exaltation wrote...
The only Bioware game i played is Dragon Age series lol,didn't like the others.
Even KOTOR?
- mybudgee aime ceci
#5
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:28
Maiden Crowe
-
- Members
- 893 messages
Exaltation wrote...
The only Bioware game i played is Dragon Age series lol,didn't like the others.
As useful as your input is I would prefer to limit this discussion to those who have actually played the games.
#6
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:33
Navasha
-
- Members
- 3 724 messages
Honestly, it was probably only because it had a lot of "firsts" in it.
It was one of the "first" games I remember where you had companions with their own personalities, rather than just creating your whole party yourself.
It was also one of the "first" games I remember where you the player had a dark history rather than just being the heroic type.
Now I am not going to say it was the ACTUAL FIRST of any of these things, but its certainly one of the firsts that was memorable to me.
First things tend to have memorable relevance and nostalgia
It was one of the "first" games I remember where you had companions with their own personalities, rather than just creating your whole party yourself.
It was also one of the "first" games I remember where you the player had a dark history rather than just being the heroic type.
Now I am not going to say it was the ACTUAL FIRST of any of these things, but its certainly one of the firsts that was memorable to me.
First things tend to have memorable relevance and nostalgia
#7
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:43
Eurypterid
-
- Members
- 4 668 messages
Maiden Crowe wrote...
Totally relevant topic for these forums as the Dragon Age team have been trying to figure this one out for years but to no avail.
I love the BG series. Probably in my top 5 favorites list, but IMO, much of the greatness of the series is nostalgia driven.
I personally don't think BioWare's efforts have been to 'no avail', since to my knowledge they never stated they were trying to make a new BG. Dragon Age was intended to be a nod to the series and a 'spiritual' successor. I actually think they captured that given the span of time, different technologies, and different aproaches to game design. YMMV.
BTW, I don't think this topic is actually relevant to the DA forums, since you're asking about BG and not really focused on the DA series at all.
#8
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:44
Barquiel
-
- Members
- 5 845 messages
Great story and atmosphere, free-roaming/exploration (especially BG1), characters I care about (Viconia:wub:), ad&d 2nd ed rules
#9
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:44
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 176 messages
It is hard to pin down, but let me give you some of the thoughts I recall having when I considered that exact question about 13 years ago, with comments about later games added:
(1) The main character
The BG series' defining storytelling quality was that it was a story about the main character as much as it was a story about what the main character did. In most rpgs, who and what the main character is was irrelevant, only that they had some task to fulfil such as saving the world.
BG was different. Its story was inextricably interwoven with who and what the main character was. Thus, all the questions pertaining to the main plot were of immediate importance to the main character themselves. Thus, the player was connected to the plot in a way other rpgs of the time didn't manage, with the exception of Planescape:Torment.
That did, of course mean that the main character was intrinsically super-special in some way, which is always a problematic route to go in storytelling, but Bioware circumvented any difficulty arising from that by not making them special in a good way. What they were started out as more of a curse than a blessing, and only in due course could they turn that around. Thus a problem was turned into a virtue.
As opposed to what's been said abovethread, the main character was definitely not a blank slate. They had a fixed history and background and a fixed father figure. That made it possible to make them a story hook and that was a strength of the game, not a weakness. They were as much defined as Hawke......with the exception of the voice. That Hawke came across as more defined was more due the fact that a default face was available and that this face was used all over the place in marketing - and because of the example of DAO, which let you choose your character's backstory and play a part of it. That was a new and immediately very appreciated feature in DAO, and its loss in DA2 was felt keenly.
Not incidentally, the next game which is widely regarded as one of Bioware's best - Knights of the Old Republic - had the same kind of main character-focused main plot. DAO, btw, did not have it, and neither did DA2. Who Hawke was was always irrelevant except in Legacy.
My advice for Bioware: if you make a main plot that's not about the main character, don't define them strongly (example: DAO). If you define them strongly, make the story about them (example: BG series, KotOR).
(2) The antagonist
There is only one.... I think it is safe to say that the BG series started out ok but only came into its own with Shadows of Amn, both in gameplay and in storytelling. To this day almost everyone who still plays BG1 does so using the BG2 engine. A part of its well-deserved fame came from the main antagonist of this chapter, Jon Irenicus. His main characteristic was that he wasn't a fanatic. He wasn't intentionally cruel, he didn't revel in his opponents' suffering, he was a sane but ruthless antagonist who did what furthered his goals with no consideration for the suffering of others, but also without malice. DAO's Loghain was of the same kind, and he's widely considered one of Bioware's best antagonists for the same reason. Meanwhile, DA2 featured insane enemies galore, and ME3 attempted to make a good one with Oleg Petrovsky, but ruined him by making him pathetic in the end.
My advice for Bioware: don't make your antagonists evil or insane. Make them pragmatic and ruthless. Evil will result naturally from that (or does anyone deny that Loghain did evil?). Don't add to it. If some players admire that ruthlessness and pragmatism, finding the evil necessary in the context of the story, LET THEM! Don't add gratuitous evil, or even other disagreeable traits just to turn the player away, but give them choices to realize their philosophy in-game (example: Loghain in DAO, who you could recruit).
In short: every evil act an antagonist commits must make sense. A good antagonist does sacrifice lives for his goals, but even the most ruthless antagonist will not do so lightly, for such sacrifices have pragmatically relevant consequences.
(3) NPCs
Shadows of Amn was the first game with full-fledged relationships between the main character and their companions, both romantic and non-romantic. That aspect got much more complex in later games, but BG2 started it, and while the presentation and the roleplaying within them has been greatly improved since then, the emotional appeal of BG2's romantic relationships (as opposed to the non-romantic ones) has not been superseded.
(4) The sweet spot in player agency
Having a main plot limits player agency. There is really no avoiding this inconvenient truth. Consequently, games with a maximum of player agency tend to have main plots not worthy of attention. Ironically, Shadows of Amn was a game with comparably *little* player agency compared to the dominant open-world games of the time. Its plot was considerably more on rails than the plot of the Fallout games, more than the plot of Arcanum which came out a little later, to say nothing of the Elder Scrolls series. So its strength did lie in the strength of its story, and that it managed to find the sweet spot in player agency, where a compelling story could at last be told instead of the player stumbling on pieces and parts of it randomly, but the player didn't feel unduly restricted by it. That sweet spot was lost in TOB, and Bioware never managed to find it again until DAO (possible exception: KotOR, which I don't recall well enough). After that, things went downhill with unprecedented speed, until the lowest point in Bioware's history was reached with ME3.
(1) The main character
The BG series' defining storytelling quality was that it was a story about the main character as much as it was a story about what the main character did. In most rpgs, who and what the main character is was irrelevant, only that they had some task to fulfil such as saving the world.
BG was different. Its story was inextricably interwoven with who and what the main character was. Thus, all the questions pertaining to the main plot were of immediate importance to the main character themselves. Thus, the player was connected to the plot in a way other rpgs of the time didn't manage, with the exception of Planescape:Torment.
That did, of course mean that the main character was intrinsically super-special in some way, which is always a problematic route to go in storytelling, but Bioware circumvented any difficulty arising from that by not making them special in a good way. What they were started out as more of a curse than a blessing, and only in due course could they turn that around. Thus a problem was turned into a virtue.
As opposed to what's been said abovethread, the main character was definitely not a blank slate. They had a fixed history and background and a fixed father figure. That made it possible to make them a story hook and that was a strength of the game, not a weakness. They were as much defined as Hawke......with the exception of the voice. That Hawke came across as more defined was more due the fact that a default face was available and that this face was used all over the place in marketing - and because of the example of DAO, which let you choose your character's backstory and play a part of it. That was a new and immediately very appreciated feature in DAO, and its loss in DA2 was felt keenly.
Not incidentally, the next game which is widely regarded as one of Bioware's best - Knights of the Old Republic - had the same kind of main character-focused main plot. DAO, btw, did not have it, and neither did DA2. Who Hawke was was always irrelevant except in Legacy.
My advice for Bioware: if you make a main plot that's not about the main character, don't define them strongly (example: DAO). If you define them strongly, make the story about them (example: BG series, KotOR).
(2) The antagonist
There is only one.... I think it is safe to say that the BG series started out ok but only came into its own with Shadows of Amn, both in gameplay and in storytelling. To this day almost everyone who still plays BG1 does so using the BG2 engine. A part of its well-deserved fame came from the main antagonist of this chapter, Jon Irenicus. His main characteristic was that he wasn't a fanatic. He wasn't intentionally cruel, he didn't revel in his opponents' suffering, he was a sane but ruthless antagonist who did what furthered his goals with no consideration for the suffering of others, but also without malice. DAO's Loghain was of the same kind, and he's widely considered one of Bioware's best antagonists for the same reason. Meanwhile, DA2 featured insane enemies galore, and ME3 attempted to make a good one with Oleg Petrovsky, but ruined him by making him pathetic in the end.
My advice for Bioware: don't make your antagonists evil or insane. Make them pragmatic and ruthless. Evil will result naturally from that (or does anyone deny that Loghain did evil?). Don't add to it. If some players admire that ruthlessness and pragmatism, finding the evil necessary in the context of the story, LET THEM! Don't add gratuitous evil, or even other disagreeable traits just to turn the player away, but give them choices to realize their philosophy in-game (example: Loghain in DAO, who you could recruit).
In short: every evil act an antagonist commits must make sense. A good antagonist does sacrifice lives for his goals, but even the most ruthless antagonist will not do so lightly, for such sacrifices have pragmatically relevant consequences.
(3) NPCs
Shadows of Amn was the first game with full-fledged relationships between the main character and their companions, both romantic and non-romantic. That aspect got much more complex in later games, but BG2 started it, and while the presentation and the roleplaying within them has been greatly improved since then, the emotional appeal of BG2's romantic relationships (as opposed to the non-romantic ones) has not been superseded.
(4) The sweet spot in player agency
Having a main plot limits player agency. There is really no avoiding this inconvenient truth. Consequently, games with a maximum of player agency tend to have main plots not worthy of attention. Ironically, Shadows of Amn was a game with comparably *little* player agency compared to the dominant open-world games of the time. Its plot was considerably more on rails than the plot of the Fallout games, more than the plot of Arcanum which came out a little later, to say nothing of the Elder Scrolls series. So its strength did lie in the strength of its story, and that it managed to find the sweet spot in player agency, where a compelling story could at last be told instead of the player stumbling on pieces and parts of it randomly, but the player didn't feel unduly restricted by it. That sweet spot was lost in TOB, and Bioware never managed to find it again until DAO (possible exception: KotOR, which I don't recall well enough). After that, things went downhill with unprecedented speed, until the lowest point in Bioware's history was reached with ME3.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 janvier 2014 - 07:39 .
#10
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:50
The Elder King
-
- Members
- 19 630 messages
Great post, Ieldra.
Modifié par hhh89, 26 janvier 2014 - 06:51 .
#12
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:51
Ferretinabun
-
- Members
- 2 686 messages
This is actually a good question. A lot of people on here seem to rave about the BG games, but they passed me by at the time.
Do they stand the test of time? Would newcomers likely enjoy them in this day and age?
Do they stand the test of time? Would newcomers likely enjoy them in this day and age?
#13
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 06:53
stormhit
-
- Members
- 250 messages
Nostalgia and the comparative landscape of other games at the time.
#15
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:07
KristofCoulson
-
- Members
- 150 messages
I think one of the greatest things about BG2, IWD2 etc is the replayability for me. I just completed another playthrough of BG2 
And I am now trying to make Icewind Dale 2 play on windows 7. Wish me luck.
I am looking forward to Pillars of Eternity And DA:I of course.
And I am now trying to make Icewind Dale 2 play on windows 7. Wish me luck.I am looking forward to Pillars of Eternity
And DA:I of course.
Modifié par KristofCoulson, 26 janvier 2014 - 07:08 .
#16
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:34
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 593 messages
Navasha wrote...
Honestly, it was probably only because it had a lot of "firsts" in it.
It was one of the "first" games I remember where you had companions with their own personalities, rather than just creating your whole party yourself.
It was also one of the "first" games I remember where you the player had a dark history rather than just being the heroic type.
Now I am not going to say it was the ACTUAL FIRST of any of these things, but its certainly one of the firsts that was memorable to me.
First things tend to have memorable relevance and nostalgia
Yeah, pretty much this.
#18
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:40
Chanda
-
- Members
- 3 195 messages
I'd like to see Baldur's Gate re-made, but with awesome graphics.
#19
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:42
HiroVoid
-
- Members
- 3 676 messages
Enhanced edition or NWN2 mod remake?Chanda wrote...
I'd like to see Baldur's Gate re-made, but with awesome graphics.
I stick with the current games anyway due to all the mods already released on them.
Modifié par HiroVoid, 26 janvier 2014 - 07:43 .
#20
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:46
Pasquale1234
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
As opposed to what's been said abovethread, the main character was definitely not a blank slate. They had a fixed history and background and a fixed father figure. That made it possible to make them a story hook and that was a strength of the game, not a weakness.
That depends, I suppose, on how one defines blank slate. Although it is true that the PC had a fixed background, it was entirely up to the player to determine how and how much that background influenced their thoughts, feelings, filters, personality, and decisions. Even though our backgrounds and ancestry are identical, each of my siblings and I have very, very different personalities, opinions, and approaches to life. One has only to take a look around these forums to see that 100 different people can all experience the same thing yet come away with 100 completely different interpretations of what it was they experienced.
Some context from wiki:
Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more literally, "scraped tablet") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.
They were as much defined as Hawke......with the exception of the voice. That Hawke came across as more defined was more due the fact that a default face was available and that this face was used all over the place in marketing - and because of the example of DAO, which let you choose your character's backstory and play a part of it. That was a new and immediately very appreciated feature in DAO, and its loss in DA2 was felt keenly.
The backgrounds, perhaps - but the PCs in BG and DAO had much greater latitude in who they could become. The physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that Hawke often said and did things I did not expect and insinuated motives that were different from what I had established made it impossible for me to ever feel that I was role-playing that character. I had no such problems with the Bhaalspawn or Warden. As one small example, I played Wardens who were uncomfortable being leaders, and others who reveled in it; some that were shy and stoic and others outgoing and expressive. DA2 did not afford anywhere near that degree of freedom in character definition.
#21
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:54
byeshoe
-
- Members
- 234 messages
come on guys....the music
you can't forget the music
you can't forget the music
#22
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:55
Maiden Crowe
-
- Members
- 893 messages
Ferretinabun wrote...
This is actually a good question. A lot of people on here seem to rave about the BG games, but they passed me by at the time.
Do they stand the test of time? Would newcomers likely enjoy them in this day and age?
The first of the series might put you off a little however the second is well worth it, definately worth a playthrough.
Also if you do plan to check these games out I would suggest exiting the thread at this point as spoilers are sure to follow.
Eurypterid wrote...
since to my knowledge they never stated they were trying to make a new BG.
Of course they never stated it as I am sure there is plenty the Dragon Age team wish to leave unsaid but then actions have always spoken louder than words and it is plain to anyone with eyes in their head that the Dragon Age team are trying to capture that spark that made the Baldur's Gate series so special yet know not what that spark might look like. And though this topic may be about Baldur's gate it is still totally relevant to the forum as within understanding the works of the past lies a better understanding of the works that are inspired by it.
Ieldra2 wrote...
(2) The antagonist
There is only one.... I think it is safe to say that the BG series started out ok but only came into its own with Shadows of Amn, both in gameplay and in storytelling. To this day almost everyone who still plays BG1 does so using the BG2 engine. A part of its well-deserved fame came from the main antagonist of this chapter, Jon Irenicus. His main characteristic was that he wasn't a fanatic. He wasn't intentionally cruel, he didn't revel in his opponents' suffering, he was a sane but ruthless antagonist who did what furthered his goals with no consideration for the suffering of others, but also without malice. DAO's Loghain was of the same kind, and he's widely considered one of Bioware's best antagonists for the same reason.
But can the desire for revenge exist without malice and ultimately was revenge not Irenicus' goal? Also 'sane' is probably one of the last words I would use to describe Irenicus, sure the guy was cold and calculating however he was also tormented and obsessed to the point he would stop at nothing to achieve his goal even if it meant stealing the power of the gods themselves to do so.
Also please dont compare Loghain to Irenicus, I know people like to claim that Loghain is one of Bioware's best antagonists however he really isnt, Irenicus had a reason and motivation for his actions and diddnt need the "but I had good intentions" angle to be interesting while Loghain's actions had no real reason other than have him fill the role of antagonist, then as a further insult to the player's intelligence they have him pull the "but I had good intentions" crap in order to fool people into thinking he was deep (a ruse that many seem taken in by) despite the fact that no sane person could see any benefit to his actions unless he was trying to actively to destroy the county from within.
#23
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:56
Sandy
-
- Members
- 327 messages
I think one of the the biggest advantages of BG1 and 2 was the perfect balance between a good and focused main story and the sense of freedom that comes with being able to go your own way pretty much from the start. While the main story was great in both games and did a good job at keeping you interested as you travel through the lands, you could also pretty much from the get go decide to go in a completely different direction and tackle various side-quests of varying lenghts for hours upon hours before even starting to continue the main questline.
#24
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 07:58
Chanda
-
- Members
- 3 195 messages
HiroVoid wrote...
Enhanced edition or NWN2 mod remake?Chanda wrote...
I'd like to see Baldur's Gate re-made, but with awesome graphics.
I stick with the current games anyway due to all the mods already released on them.
I was thinking more like how Inquisition will be.
#25
Posté 26 janvier 2014 - 08:03
Ianamus
-
- Members
- 3 388 messages
I think nostalgia has a lot to do with why people like it so much. As somebody who was too young for it at the time but has looked at it after growing up on more recent stuff I really don't think it compares to modern stuff at all. I'm sure it was great when it was released, but it isn't particularly relevant now.
