Can somebody explain to me why Baldur's Gate is such a revered classic?

[Kahunaburger]

Wait... this thread exists because this guy is mad that he died in a video game? What hath Kirby's Epic Yarn wrought?

 

[Imbechile]

Here's me thinking that the important factor would be things like "Playing a role" rather than an archaic, uninvolved, convoluted, luck-based combat system.

It's not luck-based. True some games involve "luck" in dice rolls more than they should, but games where your character stats define the outcome of the battle are RPG's. "Playing a role" means nothing. In every game you play a role.

And off topic: In your debate with Antraxus you aren't the moral high-ground since you generalize both the old-school RPG lovers and RPGs themselves. You probably didn't mean to, but you did. So don't be suprised if more people lash out to you.

 

[Enverex]

Not sure why you're having so much difficulty with that guy. You're not using anything weird or any mods are you? (or that thing that runs BG1 in the BG2 engine, because that opens a whole can of worms that the game wasn't designed for).

I don't remember this guy being a big issue, but it may be worth heading South to Nashkel first and getting Minsk, that should help.

 

[dimensional]

Its a revered classic because it has a cult following thats why, most mainstream gamers will never have even heard of it or if they have they say oh yeah that one on the ps2 right dark alliance and I have to say no not that one the originals and then they have zero idea what I am talking about.

If more people had played it there would be more fans but also many more dissenters its just the way it goes, seriously outside of the internet I have never to my knowledge spoken to anyone who has even heard about the original Baldurs Gate titles (at least before I told them) let alone played them. The fans can go mad over it but they dont really make that much noise (as they are a relatively small group) so people who dont like it usually just think ah well this is crap and move on without much fuss.

Personally I still cant get into the first BG but the second was a great improvement although far from my favourite RPG ever.

 

[GiantRaven]

Hahahaha! Sorry but this is funny. You completely missed out on getting 2 other companions on the way to this guy that makes it easy to defeat him.

Their names are Xzar who is a human necromancer and Montaron who is a halfling rogue and you meet them in the woodland area before the inn. they carry potions and scrolls aswell as enough hits to kill the bastard without mishap.

As pretty much the only worthwhile helpful post here I feel I should actually bother to reply to it (and ignore all those utterly ridiculous insults thrown my way) - they were what now?! I just told them to sod off because I didn't trust them and didn't want to go south when I needed to be going north. Serves me right for following the wrong dialogue options! I have to wonder why, if these additional characters were so important to progress through the game, were they so easy to discard?

If the game requires one optimal solution, such as needing a min/maxed character as was mentioned elsewhere, then why does the game allow you to unknowingly gimp yourself so badly. Chances are I'd need to restart the whole game again and work my way back to the same point. Why would I do that, expending valuable time of my life, knowing that the same may happen again later in the game and I was completely unaware of it.

It's just bad design through and through.

 

[michael87cn]

Wouldn't know. I own both of the Baldur's Gate games but I've never really given either much of a chance. I just can't enjoy the entire process. Call me dumb or stupid or lazy, but either way, I find everything to be "work". Making a character is a pain, starting the game you see a massive interface with about 100 different buttons and when you click on one, you're assaulted with about 50 more that all link to 50 other interface options. Not to mention the whole idea of controlling a PARTY of characters in a real time isometric game is a nightmarish headache for me - and I'm fairly good at strategy games! - . . .

Now, in comparison to fallout 1/2? They are much better games. The character creation is varied but not confusing. The interface has options and depth but its not something you have to study. Everything is intuitive and with a little memorization becomes second nature. You can get party members but you're not forced to pause the game every few seconds to control every single thing they do. You control one character and your party of NPCs follow you and exercise their own A.I.

Combat is a lot more fun because it's turn based...

Basically.. in my opinion the Fallout games were ahead of their time and did it right - the Baldur's Gate games were obsolete at their time and did it wrong. That's why I don't like 'em. I have much the same problem getting into Planescape Torment. The writing in the games may be excellent, but I would prefer better gameplay and less reading to horrible gameplay and Shakespeare.

 

[theonecookie]

Meh balders gate is just one those games from the old skool of rpgs meaning that it will try to fuck you over on everything you do add to it that its based on second edition DnD a game system that doesn't know the meaning of class balance and you have a recipe for butt hurt

Although I don't remember that fight being to hard he only has a couple of spells if I remember so you just have to get lucky and interrupt his magic missile the dwarf assassin in the next town is the real ***** took me something like 20 tries

also what class you playing the melee classes are rather underpowered when compared with ranged and magic builds

 

[lRookiel]

Snip

I'm the only helpful person here? Why thank you <3

It's a common mistake really, one I made myself aswell. but you need to learn to jump for the opportunities when they come your way. And I cannot stress enough how often you need to save, after every battle, before you rest, before you travel (ESPECIALLY before you travel! Or you will be in for many surprises which will force you back considerably)

By the way, they will follow you to the inn regardless, you don't have to go south with them

Now I must point out once you acquire the set of companions I wouldn't keep them for long, my advice would be to get Xzar and Montaron, go to the inn, kill the troublesome assassin, then get Khalid and Jaheira to join your group. Since the two groups of companions are completely different (They secretly both work for different factions and have different interests), they will bicker amongst themselves and eventually fight (It would take a while). so searching for additional companions is a must, it's your choice really.

 

[Kahunaburger]

As pretty much the only worthwhile helpful post here I feel I should actually bother to reply to it (and ignore all those utterly ridiculous insults thrown my way) - they were what now?! I just told them to sod off because I didn't trust them and didn't want to go south when I needed to be going north. Serves me right for following the wrong dialogue options! I have to wonder why, if these additional characters were so important to progress through the game, were they so easy to discard?

Wow, it's almost like your choices actually have an impact on the game.

If the game requires one optimal solution, such as needing a min/maxed character as was mentioned elsewhere, then why does the game allow you to unknowingly gimp yourself so badly. Chances are I'd need to restart the whole game again and work my way back to the same point. Why would I do that, expending valuable time of my life, knowing that the same may happen again later in the game and I was completely unaware of it.

It's just bad design through and through.

Min-maxing is pretty easy. That's why it's called min-maxing. You put the maximum points into the things that help your character be good at doing the thing you want your character to be good at, and put the minimum points into things that aren't relevant to that. If the game is less than clear about what abilities are effective in what situations or work well together*, you read GameFAQs or something.

Seriously, this is like complaining about how you have to gather resources in an RTS. What if you don't want to gather resources? The game should reward all choices equally because anything else is just bad design through and through!

*this is an actual example of bad game design.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I have much the same problem getting into Planescape Torment. The writing in the games may be excellent, but I would prefer better gameplay and less reading to horrible gameplay and Shakespeare.

I actually think the gameplay in Planescape: Torment gets unnecessary flak. I don't really remember it playing significantly different than, say, Dragon Age.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

This can be a tough fight, depending on your character build/lay-out. There are basically two crucial things to realise: he usually throws up a defensive spell first, which allows him to shrug off a few attacks (Which is why there are multiple copies of him), and that he has a limited spell roster. If you can survive his first few spells, you'll be fine, because he has no close combat ability.

One final thing is that you can attack him whilst he is approaching you, without suffering any penalty. Using ranged weapons against him may help, and in particular, it may allow you to interrupt the casting of his defensive spell. If you can do that, he's a piece of cake, as he'll struggle to fire off any spells whilst you're attacking him, as it should be easy to interrupt him.

 

[bluepotatosack]

Personally, I was always a much bigger fan of Planescape: Torment.

Same system, much more interesting setting and characters. Which is something Baldur's Gate already did extremely well.

 

[GiantRaven]

Wow, it's almost like your choices actually have an impact on the game.

Hah, that's true. I would prefer, however, that the choices I make actually allowed me to continue through the game.

Min-maxing is pretty easy. That's why it's called min-maxing. You put the maximum points into the things that help your character be good at doing the thing you want your character to be good at, and put the minimum points into things that aren't relevant to that. If the game is less than clear about what abilities are effective in what situations or work well together*, you read GameFAQs or something.

The problem isn't whether it's easy or not, it's the fact that it needs to be done at all. If you need to min-max to beat the game, then why am I presented with a bunch of other options which aren't going to be of help to me?

Making a sub-optimal character that only serves to make the game impossibly hard is just going to infuriate the player, which is the exact opposite of what the developers should be trying to do.

Seriously, this is like complaining about how you have to gather resources in an RTS. What if you don't want to gather resources? The game should reward all choices equally because anything else is just bad design through and through!

This may not come as a surprise but I have little love for the RTS genre.

It's a common mistake really, one I made myself aswell. but you need to learn to jump for the opportunities when they come your way.

Clearly roleplaying a grump anti-social dwarf was a poor choice of character.

By the way, they will follow you to the inn regardless, you don't have to go south with them

Now I must point out once you acquire the set of companions I wouldn't keep them for long, my advice would be to get Xzar and Montaron, go to the inn, kill the troublesome assassin, then get Khalid and Jaheira to join your group. Since the two groups of companions are completely different (They secretly both work for different factions and have different interests), they will bicker amongst themselves and eventually fight (It would take a while). so searching for additional companions is a must, it's your choice really.

Interesting, I fobbed them off pretty much because I had no interest in going south (my mission seemed pretty important, no time for messing around) but I might go back in a few weeks and give it another try. I'm somewhat reluctant to though since I don't want to end up in another fight in which I'm repeatedly killed 20 seconds with seemingly no way to victory.

I want to say 'ah perhaps this just isn't the game for me' but I love Arcanum and Fallout so much that I want to see it through just so that I've experience a higher amount of isometric RPGs.

Also, as a general side note, all these comments about me being a dirty 'casual' or needing to run crying to my mother are hilarious. 'Hardcore' gamers really do make me laugh sometimes. It's even funnier when you read other threads about how gamers are looked down upon. Some people could really use a good look in the mirror.

Seriously, utterly hilarious.

 

[Keava]

The problem isn't whether it's easy or not, it's the fact that it needs to be done at all. If you need to min-max to beat the game, then why am I presented with a bunch of other options which aren't going to be of help to me?

Making a sub-optimal character that only serves to make the game impossibly hard is just going to infuriate the player, which is the exact opposite of what the developers should be trying to do.

You can play through with non min-maxed character as long as You follow common sense. Making warrior with 8 Strength/Constitution and maxed charisma/wisdom, while fun in table top setting in a campaign that's not focused on combat doesn't really work well with games that make combat mandatory.
You could pull that kind of gameplay in Planescape, as lot of combat was avoidable through dialogue, or in Fallout, where You could finish F2 in few minutes if You made a specific unconventional character build, but those games had completely different design, and probably wouldn't exist if not BG.

BG was adaptation of table top D&D, it was pretty much game for the fans of the experience and people who were aware of the mechanics. The game also came with reasonably sized manual that explained the basics, at first steps it even pushed You towards getting full party as soon as possible to have easier time with combat. Pretty much everything up to and including the Inn was what modern games would use as "tutorial"... just not "dumbed" down.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Min-maxing is pretty easy. That's why it's called min-maxing. You put the maximum points into the things that help your character be good at doing the thing you want your character to be good at, and put the minimum points into things that aren't relevant to that. If the game is less than clear about what abilities are effective in what situations or work well together*, you read GameFAQs or something.

The problem isn't whether it's easy or not, it's the fact that it needs to be done at all. If you need to min-max to beat the game, then why am I presented with a bunch of other options which aren't going to be of help to me?

Making a sub-optimal character that only serves to make the game impossibly hard is just going to infuriate the player, which is the exact opposite of what the developers should be trying to do.

It's basically a consequence of almost every flexible system that not every combination of choices you make is as good as every other combination of choices. Going back to the RTS example, I could theoretically construct nothing but pylons in a Starcraft game. Or in chess, I could choose to chase things around with my knights instead of developing my other pieces. I'd get completely reamed, but these are certainly things I could do.

Considering that I don't think anyone would accuse Starcraft or chess of terrible game design with a straight face (even if RTS games are not your thing), I think we have no choice but to conclude that it's okay for games to offer a choice system that allows the player to make bad decisions.

 

[GiantRaven]

It's basically a consequence of almost every flexible system that not every combination of choices you make is as good as every other combination of choices. Going back to the RTS example, I could theoretically construct nothing but pylons in a Starcraft game. Or in chess, I could choose to chase things around with my knights instead of developing my other pieces. I'd get completely reamed, but these are certainly things I could do.

Considering that I don't think anyone would accuse Starcraft or chess of terrible game design with a straight face (even if RTS games are not your thing), I think we have no choice but to conclude that it's okay for games to offer a choice system that allows the player to make bad decisions.

I see what you mean, that's definitely a fair point to make.

 

[Carnagath]

I haven't played the BG games in a little over ten years, so I remember pretty much nothing about specific encounters, just a general story. I never found them hard though, because RPG's existed in a different kind of context back then. The thought process behind battles with the Infinity Engine was pretty much a joke for people who were also playing adventure games like Black Dahlia and Ripper without guides or internet. Taking a 20 minute break to think how to approach a situation was normal. Today it's insufferable and disruptive because we are all dumber and more impatient gamers. Can't comment on that specific "assassin" encounter, but RNG-type encounters were extremely uncommon, I'm pretty sure there's some strategy behind it.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Baldur's Gate is pretty hard to get into if you don't know D&D.
Pro tip...use the space bar and play it as a turn based game.

Think of it like an MMO if you have played one only you are controlling everyone. You need a tank, healer, dps. Focus fire down casters, use aoe etc.

I;ve heard its easier if you start as a paladin or warrior but I played it as a mage most of the time and it wasn't too bad.

 

[tehroc]

Level 1 can be the most difficult DND might be. You've got at max 17 hps (Gnome Barbarian with a 20 con) where any critical hit could drop you into the negatives. Hell a level 1 Mage could fall of his horse and go negative.