Baldur's Gate 1

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Ok, so I started this. Hmmmm...... Not sure if I should continue.

Your thoughts- a worthwhile RPG experience, or just more gay elves?
 
I found it kind of dull and slow moving and gave up halfway through. If you have Baldur's Gate II, some modders have made a way for you to play the first game with the sequel's engine; might be worth checking out if you're interested enough to finish - makes the experience a lot more enjoyable. It's at http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/index_teambg.php under "Baldur's Gate Trilogy". There's also a smaller patch that will do it if you don't want to download 660 megs, no idea where it's hosted now though.
 
I always found most of Baldurs Gate alot like that "Mountain Pass" area in Arcanum. Where, for some unknown reason, you were forced to kill hundreds upon hundreds of polar bears and other assorted wildlife. It gets better once you get into the big city though.

Also, it's still a better looking game than Arcanum, if memory serves me right.
 
Baldur's Gate...I would advise to stop after the first few areas and then pick it up to try again later.

A lot of it is REALLY boring combat work, the characters are uninteresting, there are practically no multiple ways to finish quests and if you ever enter Firewine Bridge you'll really, really regret it. Fucking Bridge
 
I was blown away by BG when first I played it - the graphics, the presentation, the in-jokes, the freaky walk-on characters. Unless you count the expansion, there was only one area that frustrated me. The scope of it was nothing but positive.

However, if you look forward to the next meeting with a Black Bear and equipping your first Short Sword +1 with dread and nausea then probably it's not the game for you. There's a lot of trap-detecting and kobold-slaying and inventory-sorting to do.
 
It's rather boring and slow moving at first, although it gets better when you finally get to Baldur's Gate itself. Not my game, although I did once complete it just to be able to play with that character through BG2, and then Throne of Bhaal as well. (Which I eventually didn't do, I stopped somewhere halfway through BG2).


Basically, if you're getting bored now, perhaps you should put it down and come back to it later, or you should continue and see if it gets any better further in, though I doubt it.

Oh, and I've always missed a way to see a quick overview of all quests there, scrolling that blood journal was annoying.
 
It is worthwhile as a prelude to Baldur's Gate, though the plot summary is pretty easy to find. As others said, it gets more interesting once you are in Baldur's Gate proper, though the characters ARE interesting, contrary to other opinions here. Some of the dialogue is quite good, but the game suffer that eternal bane of RPGs: area-specific level fests. I can't stand remaining in the same location massacring hordes of creatures for no reason, just to get a boost to another level. Doesn't seem very proper.
 
Hey Fireblade. I saw you before. Wait a minute. Where is that miniature giant mutant space hamster????

Go for the eyes Boo!!!! Go for the eyes !!!! :shock:

*Eyemaster7 shakes while he sees flashbacks of events from the past hidden in his memory"
 
Fireblade said:
Who DOESN'T love Minsc???
Click to expand...

*spoiler, ey?*

Me. I'm sorry, Minsc was a bit of an exception, but the Ranger Class kind of sucked in BG1. Good thing you could at least use him for item dumping and you could just kill his bitch companion to free up her slot. Despite all that, even Minsc kind of sucked, though he was a good addition to the average good party.

Rangers. Meh.
 
I thought the original BG was fantastic- the plodding pace (which I didn't mind) actually made each level-up and cool new item exciting. The sequel gives you all kinds of crap right from the start, and I wasn't exactly a huge fan of that. To be fair, I didn't play much of the second one.

To this day BG remains one of the best RPG's I've ever played.

Go for the eyes, indeed.
 
eh, it was fun the first time through, but i can't ever see myself picking it up again. It's too long without enough reward throughout the story.

There's better out there :).
 
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep saying that the graphics were good in BGs. They sucked, much like the rest of the game.
 
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep saying that the graphics were good in BGs. They sucked, much like the rest of the game.
Click to expand...

They were pretty good for the time, and still better than Arcanum's. Which is, like, a gazillion years newer.
 
BG series is a good job of playing D&D on the PC. It's nothing deeper than that, but if you enjoy D&D (which I do) you will enjoy Baldur's Gate and its sequels. (I believe the console instalments are the equivilent of Fallout: BoS, so stay away from them)
 
I played the Baldur's gate demo and liked it a bit. Some years later(and after getting BG2) i got BG 1 and releasied demo after leaving candlekeep had the next hour or two condensed into 5 minutes. Those 5 minutes had awesome pacing, the game didn't. never played it again and delete it of my hard drive a week ago to make space for KOTOR 2.
 
I prefer Arcanum graphics over BG's because they are more aesthetically pleasing and less pixelated (since they support 3D acceleration 'n all). I dislike the visual aspect of Infinity Engine in general - everything is too pixelated and attempting to click on a small on-screen object is incredibly tedious. In my opinion, Fallout has a much better engine.
 
John Uskglass said:
Nein. BGII looked better then the Fallout engine probably ever could.
Click to expand...
Visually yes, but only because it had more detailed sprites. Fallout's sprites were designed for resolution 640x480 and 8-bit color depth. With redrawn art and some minor modifications to the engine, Fallout would be aesthetically superior to BG II. Have a look at these screenshots (courtesy of Lich) and tell me I'm wrong:

newtileshot.jpg


demo2.jpg


demo3.gif


zlew.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top