Supposing I'd want to replay Baldur's Gate

[Serge 13]

i was referring to BN's note which said "They(Arcanum & PS torment) both sucked".

Pay attention. The bolded parts here are referring to the same thing:
cody92: If baulders gate has a poor combat system, i wonder how arcanum's combat is, or planescape's. doubt either of them are better.

Me: They also both suck.

A friend of mine played all the baldurs gate games a few months ago (He was hooked to his pc for quite a long time)and was very pleased with them.I haven't played any of the Baldurs Gate games but i was kinda surprised to see how many people hate this game.

2 is better than 1.

okay then ,my mistake ...and yes, Arcanum's combat wasn't the best .

hmmm..even if BG 2 is better then BG 1 i still have to play the first part .Can't just start with the second part .
But i still don't know if it is worth the time and the effort to play the BG series .I might give Icewind Dale a try though .

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

I never got why Baldur's Gate is so highly regarded in certain circles. It's a stupid hack'n'slash with a retarded combat system, annoying characters, uninteresting story, and quite frankly it looks pretty ugly design-wise.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I loved the baldurs gate games

the combat was not bad I don't think, I'd consider it about average, and the plot also wasn;t anything short of average, but I loved the atmosphere and setting and the way the game protrayed everything. I actually like the first better than the second, because the setting of the first one and the mood of the game is more enticing, while the second one features a much more rich story line (comparatively) and a much thicker plot and is overall a bigger game.

I actually found baldurs gate much easier to play than Arcanum, even though the story wasn;t as good. Baldurs gate doesn;t feel clunky or awkward to play at all for me, and I never really considered it a slow game, it seemed to progress just fine, roughly at the same pace as fallout I'd say (with faster combat).

 

[Madbringer]

(snip)

Could just as well be my own words (with the exception of liking 1 more than 2).

Maybe i'm just a D&D fanboi (well, i am, graaarlgahaha), but i got completely sunk in the Baldur's Gate games, replaying them numerous times, with and without mods, with different characters. And the games delivered each and every time, providing hours of entertainment. The story? Sure, it's not super duper mega great, but it's definitely not uninteresting. Combat? Average, yes, but not a pain in the ass. Annoying characters? Never noticed. The ones important to the plot, and the NPC's from 2, were all really well written and developed.

Sure, they are overhyped, but you guys portraying them as boring, uninspired piece of shit is very, very not cool and wrong, because they aren't.

 

[Sander]

If baulders gate has a poor combat system, i wonder how arcanum's combat is, or planescape's. doubt either of them are better.

I fail to see what relevance Arcanum's combat system has when we're talking about the horror that is Baldur's Gate system.

Besides that, the rest of Baldur's Gate also sucks.

 

[Ravager69]

I *tried* to play BG1. Twice. I spent about 1 hour with it and man I was bored.

I finished BG2 + ToB once. One of the most childish games I played (even NWN 2 was more mature - or was it?). It was fun, but I don't want to do it again.

I went through 3\4 of Icewind Dale and it got bored with it.

Now Icewind Dale 2 - this, I played about 5 times. It's more of a dungeon crawl than RPG, but man this game got great atmosphere and combat is fun. In addition, there are mods that make it even better.

Finished Planescape once and also, I don't feel the need to go through all the text again (I'm going blind after all), although the game has numerous momentous....moments.

Never played Arcanum. Maybe I'll give it a try.

What about Lionheart? Anyone liked it? Is it even worth the time?

 

[cody92]

I finished BG2 + ToB once. One of the most childish games I played (even NWN 2 was more mature - or was it?). It was fun, but I don't want to do it again.

More immature then Nwn 2, come on now your just being plain unfair...

 

[xdarkyrex]

What about Lionheart? Anyone liked it? Is it even worth the time?

I also want to know the answer to this question.
Preferably from someone who loved planescape and bg1, as i think id more likely agree with their assesment and cane better use it to make a prior judgement



-edit-
also:

Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader is a action role-playing game, developed for the PC by Reflexive Entertainment, and released in August 13, 2003. The game is viewed from a 3/4 isometric camera angle (as is common in many third-person role-playing games, such as the Diablo series). It focuses on a protagonist, controlled by the player, as he travels on a quest that constitutes the central focus of the game. The plot stipulates a rift in reality that drastically altered medieval history by allowing demons and other similar beings to enter the mortal realm. During the game, the protagonist encounters and interacts with numerous historical figures such as Joan of Arc, who are represented as non-player characters.

Lionheart utilizes the SPECIAL role-playing system, which was first used in the Fallout series, and in this game functions primarily in adding points to specific skills in separate trees to strengthen a character's "Spiritkind," which has a personality and nature chosen by the player at the start of the game. Lionheart was also codenamed Fallout Fantasy early in its development.[1][2]

WTF!?
I did not know that!

well now, even if it sucks, I simply MUST give it a try

 

[Brother None]

I never got why Baldur's Gate is so highly regarded in certain circles. It's a stupid hack'n'slash with a retarded combat system, annoying characters, uninteresting story, and quite frankly it looks pretty ugly design-wise.

It was the start of a bold new direction in RPG design which brings us to where we are now. If you love where RPGs are now, you love Baldur's Gate.

Sure, they are overhyped, but you guys portraying them as boring, uninspired piece of shit is very, very not cool and wrong, because they aren't.

You agree with every complaint we have and then say we're wrong in drawing the logical conclusion?

Here's another way to figure it; you love it as a D&D emulator, we don't care about that. AD&D is a very mediocre dungeon hack system, not really the cream of the crop of pen and paper.

You can tell me it's "not cool and wrong" for me to say that, but fact is I've only managed to finish Baldur's Gate once. I've bravely dared to try and play through it half a dozen times. The middle one - a gnome illusionist/fighter - made it all the way through, every other one, even a dwarf fighter I was very fond of, decide to commit hara-kiri rather than being forced to go through the boring drudgery of those friggin' forest crawls.

Try telling those poor player characters who died throwing themselves on Drizz't's swords rather than being faced with such idiotic fanservice that they're "not cool and wrong". Try telling those poor sods who were desperately trying to vault themselves outside of the really badly written linear storyline somehow. Those poor elves and gnomes and other cliché fantasy races all lying their in puddles of blood after their heads exploded from trying to get Imoen to stop bothering them...I cry for them every day.

What about Lionheart? Anyone liked it? Is it even worth the time?

Only played it once. It's very good up to and including the first town. Then it suddenly sucks.

It kinda butchers SPECIAL and doesn't really improve on it in any significant way.

 

[Madbringer]

You agree with every complaint we have and then say we're wrong in drawing the logical conclusion?

Here's another way to figure it; you love it as a D&D emulator, we don't care about that. AD&D is a very mediocre dungeon hack system, not really the cream of the crop of pen and paper.

You can tell me it's "not cool and wrong" for me to say that, but fact is I've only managed to finish Baldur's Gate once. I've bravely dared to try and play through it half a dozen times. The middle one - a gnome illusionist/fighter - made it all the way through, every other one, even a dwarf fighter I was very fond of, decide to commit hara-kiri rather than being forced to go through the boring drudgery of those friggin' forest crawls.

But you DID finish it, yes? It's not by any measure a short game, so if you actually went from the beginning till the end, the game couldn't have possibly be such a dreadful, abhorrent experience of a game as you guys are saying it is.

I ain't saying either BG game is perfect, but if someone appreciates the Forgotten Realms setting, he will definitely enjoy it, and will let it's shortcomings slide. I know i did, and i don't regret my time spent on those games.

Of course, if someone is not into the whole pulp fantasy thing, much less the specifics of D&D and Forgotten Realms, it will only flesh out the mentioned shortcomings and, indeed, make the games (especially the first one) nothing short of boring. But then again, you don't play games that are set in themes you don't like very much and expect to enjoy them. :E

 

[Brother None]

But you DID finish it, yes? It's not by any measure a short game, so if you actually went from the beginning till the end, the game couldn't have possibly be such a dreadful, abhorrent experience of a game as you guys are saying it is.

I finish everything I start.

I ain't saying either BG game is perfect, but if someone appreciates the Forgotten Realms setting, he will definitely enjoy it, and will let it's shortcomings slide.

That's not a measure of how good BG is as a videogame, though. Just a measure of how much you like Forgotten Realms.

But then again, you don't play games that are set in themes you don't like very much and expect to enjoy them. :E

That doesn't make much sense. Do you mean in setting or ruleset? Either don't matter more than the execution does. I mean, hating D&D doesn't stop me from loving PS:T.

 

[Madbringer]

I finish everything I start.

mm.

That's not a measure of how good BG is as a videogame, though. Just a measure of how much you like Forgotten Realms.

If it had no worthwhile content whatsoever, i wouldn't have bothered, Forgotten Realms or not. All i'm saying that the quality of the game will differ, depending on one's tastes. If you do not like what the game is offering you, it doesn't automatically mean the game is bad (though, BG is definitely very flawed).

That doesn't make much sense. Do you mean in setting or ruleset? Either don't matter more than the execution does. I mean, hating D&D doesn't stop me from loving PS:T.

I meant, setting. Baldur's Gate is typical pulp heroic fantasy, with ladies in distress, knights in shining armors, villains with curling mustaches and all that shit, and Torment, while based on the same ruleset, is in a completely different setting, offering a surreal journey through rather uncharted territory of the D&D world, so you can't compare the two games on that level.

 

[Brother None]

If it had no worthwhile content whatsoever, i wouldn't have bothered, Forgotten Realms or not. All i'm saying that the quality of the game will differ, depending on one's tastes. If you do not like what the game is offering you, it doesn't automatically mean the game is bad (though, BG is definitely very flawed).

Ah, but I never said otherwise. You are the one claiming it can be objectively qualified as "not crap", and that's nonsense.

As I said a few posts above, people who see it as D&D simulators generally love it, and people who love the current state of cRPGs in the industry tend to love it because it was the first to set us into that new course. I'm fine with that, but don't go saying it's "not cool" when the game is nauseating at best to me.

I meant, setting. Baldur's Gate is typical pulp heroic fantasy, with ladies in distress, knights in shining armors, villains with curling mustaches and all that shit.

I can stand that too, if well done.

It very rarely is, though. It's kinda hard to do well. Making a good high fantasy setting and story is probably more challenging than making a quirky fun setting.

 

[Madbringer]

Ah, but I never said otherwise. You are the one claiming it can be objectively qualified as "not crap", and that's nonsense.

As I said a few posts above, people who see it as D&D simulators generally love it, and people who love the current state of cRPGs in the industry tend to love it because it was the first to set us into that new course. I'm fine with that, but don't go saying it's "not cool" when the game is nauseating at best to me.

Fair enough. I sometimes have trouble seeing things "through the eyes of other people", especially if i'm highly biased on the matter, self admittingly, this one in particular + drunk.

 

[Brother None]

Being drunk is good

 

[Per]

Mmm, BG thread. I approve!

I played through BG for the third time about a year ago and enjoyed it a lot. It's just a solid game, made with attention to detail and love for the subject. Obviously won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you ever liked or praised a Gold Box or Eye of the Beholder game, I don't see how you could come down on BG at all.

I was itching to go on to BG2, but I made a deal with myself that I couldn't until I'd updated the Fo2 guide.

 

[Brother None]

Obviously won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you ever liked or praised a Gold Box or Eye of the Beholder game, I don't see how you could come down on BG at all.

I'm sorry but how does that work? I can't even begin to vaguely compare Pools of Radiance to Baldur's Gate.

Other than that they're both Forgotten Realms and both intended to serve as a kind of D&D simulator, I don't see where you're coming from. The Gold Box Forgotten Realms series had a focus on combat but was a tactical simulator, intended as a dungeon crawl and functioning as one. Baldur's Gate is kind of lost between being a dungeon crawl, a hack and slash and an RPG and thus sucks at all 3.

But I never liked "if you said a good thing about X, you can't come down on Y"-logic, at all.

 

[Ravager69]

I'm a fan to D&D games, but I couldn't force myself to play this game. I don't recommend it to anyone that haven't played it before - it doesn't offer anything interesting (in my opinion) and now it's pretty lame when compared to newer RPGs.

 

[Sander]

Mmm, BG thread. I approve!

I played through BG for the third time about a year ago and enjoyed it a lot. It's just a solid game, made with attention to detail and love for the subject. Obviously won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you ever liked or praised a Gold Box or Eye of the Beholder game, I don't see how you could come down on BG at all.

I was itching to go on to BG2, but I made a deal with myself that I couldn't until I'd updated the Fo2 guide.

Wait what?
Coming down on Baldur's Gate is so easy. Just ignoring the mechanics behind it (which it shares up to some point with the Gold Box games), the story is really boring and very poorly paced, the sidequests are crap (the first interesting quest probably only pops up when you're way up to Baldur's Gate already) and the world is extremely static.

The only halway interesting party character in the game is also only interesting because he's insane and carries a hamster.

 

[Tagaziel]

I like Baldur's Gate and can't really help it. There are a few interesting characters (Viconia DeVir in all three games) and an interesting plot (not so much in BG as in BG2 and ToB).