Is Baldur's Gate worth playing?

[Athinira]

Eh no. The version of AD&D used in BG2 (which is what BG1 also runs with Tutu) is by no means perfect, but it's damned well functional and balanced.

You just lost all credibility with this.

Why? Because you say so again?

Baldur's Gate gameplay was perfectly functional, although difficult (which isn't equivalent to unbalanced. Ninja Gaiden was also difficult, but well balanced). It wouldn't have been such a succes if the system completely broke the gameplay. Period.

The only way i can lose all credibility is if you actually explain how the system makes the game suck. Otherwise all I'm hearing is "I sucked at the game, therefore the combat system sucks", which makes you lose more credibility than i do. So please: Explain yourself.

 

[Leftnt Sharpe]

It's awesome, but for the love of pants, use the mod that makes BG1 use the BG2 engine (wouldn't have remembered, but "tutu" is the name, I guess). Much less frustration that way. I remember playing the plain original and it was rather painful in some circumstances. Like pretty early into the game you're milling about in these really narrow corridors. The improved BG2 engine allows your characters to 'push' each other slightly to get past, so navigating these narrow tunnels wasn't so unbelievably annoying.

And if you don't want to experiment at first nor do you want to start the game over again after a while, do look up a guide on character creation. The first time I played I chose Fighter/Mage, aww right I'm gonna kick ass! > . Propably doesn't surprise anyone that I was then both a really sucky fighter and a sucky mage, and those don't add up to a competent adventurer.

Ah the old Fighter/Mage pitfall, I remember it well. Multi-classing is certainly less flexible in Baldur's Gate compared to BG2 which also had dual classing including the loltastic Kensai/Mage dual class.

 

[s0p0g]

It is le awesome. Get the whole series (BG, BG: Tales of the Sword Coast, BG2 and G2: Throne of Bhaal), and kiss sunlight goodbye for the next couple of months. That's right. Months. The games are huge.

what he said ^^

i think there aren't many games that are "must-have"... played... -s, but BG surely is
but don't take 3 classes with your char; as you might imagine, that sucks, because you won't be able to do anything really well ^^

 

[Jesus Phish]

These words are only so I don't get into trouble with the mods.

Yes. Yes it is worth playing..

 

[Humble85]

Yes. I'm currently replaying #2, and even though I been around when it was released, I can say it has aged pretty well and is really, really worth playing. I definitely recommend the use of the great mods out there, the do add pretty nice stuff, like party banter, romance, lost quests, etc.

 

[Srdjan]

It's still great, but if you haven't played it yet I must warn you: Game is hard as hell, and you must know D&D rules pretty damn well.

 

[Blitzwarp]

It depends on how important graphics are to you, because they haven't aged terribly well. However, the gameplay mechanics are excellent (so much so that I'd rather play that than a lot of modern games...), and I will forever lol at the phrase "Stop touching me!"

 

[Cooperblack]

It depends on how important graphics are to you, because they haven't aged terribly well. However, the gameplay mechanics are excellent (so much so that I'd rather play that than a lot of modern games...), and I will forever lol at the phrase "Stop touching me!"

My favorite is "Don't touch me I'm super important".

 

[zfactor]

Yes.

You wanted an explanation? Play it and you'll find out.

 

[Blitzwarp]

It depends on how important graphics are to you, because they haven't aged terribly well. However, the gameplay mechanics are excellent (so much so that I'd rather play that than a lot of modern games...), and I will forever lol at the phrase "Stop touching me!"

My favorite is "Don't touch me I'm super important".

Awww man, Xzar was such a drama queen. I want to go back and play now. TT___TT

 

[migo]

Eh no. The version of AD&D used in BG2 (which is what BG1 also runs with Tutu) is by no means perfect, but it's damned well functional and balanced.

You just lost all credibility with this.

Why? Because you say so again?

Baldur's Gate gameplay was perfectly functional, although difficult (which isn't equivalent to unbalanced. Ninja Gaiden was also difficult, but well balanced). It wouldn't have been such a succes if the system completely broke the gameplay. Period.

There wasn't anything else. Plenty of things are successful in the absence of competition. Talbetop RPGs were successful in the absence of video games. Once D20 was out, every game moved to that and not a single one looked back.

The only way i can lose all credibility is if you actually explain how the system makes the game suck.

First of all, damage. Even starting with max HP at first level, with most classes, a single hit from even a low level enemy can kill you. Even 3rd edition didn't fix this, it took 4th ed to do Con+Class for level 1 HP rather than HP+Con bonus.

Based off damage, extreme reliance on healing magic. You needed as many CLW spells memorised as you could to survive, and for that you needed to be a cleric, which pretty much ruled out all other classes. This was the same in BG as in 2E. At least in BG you could do some cheating by re-rolling stats, exporting and importing and having a bit better of a start.

No level scaling, you go off the set path for your characters and you'll stumble into an encounter intended for much later that you have no way of winning. Ends up railroading you in the same way that a dick GM would.

You didn't even have the same type of flexibility that AD&D had. Anyone who goes back to AD&D from d20 or 4e does so because the later editions have rules that are restrictive and prevent creativity. With Command you could only say "Die", you had no access to Climb Walls thanks to the game not being able to handle it, it ended up being the worst of AD&D and the worst of d20.

Otherwise all I'm hearing is "I sucked at the game, therefore the combat system sucks", which makes you lose more credibility than i do. So please: Explain yourself.

I know 2e inside and out. I've got multiple PHBs, and a ton of supplemental materials for the FR. I played the hell out of BG when it first came out, and had fun then. That was before I knew about better systems. Some games just end up obsolete, and BG is one of them.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'd say the answer would generally be no.

It is an incredible game, certainly, but it is not a game most people would enjoy. Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty of perfectly good reasons most people would never finish the game if they started it now:

Unintuitive Interface. Any D&D game has had to struggle with figuring out how to replicate the rule set and while the Baldur's Gate option was functional, it was far from ideal. Casting a spell requires selecting one's mage, opening their spellbook (since one can only slot three spells for quick access), selecting the spell based upon a small icon, clicking on an enemy and waiting for the spell to be cast (which takes at least six seconds for even the simplest spells as the cast begins at the start of the next round).

Atrocious Pacing. The game shifts from story to combat regularly and both present plenty of problems. The story driven segments often involve a lot of walking through a space the player has already explored a dozen times over, finding the appropriate NPC without the aid of distinct character graphics or even a map marker, and finally clicking on them and running through the choose your own adventure conversation system. Combat is almost certainly worse as executing anything beyond "attack with whatever you have in your hand" involves trudging through menus and submenues and there is so much to manage that the game may as well be turn based as a player will constantly be forced to pause the game to issue new orders. Thanks to the D&D system at it's heart, death is often delivered to the player in a fairly arbitrary fashion and while death does not mean the end of the game (unless it was the player who fell), unless one wants to reload the last save (in a game with a spartan autosave feature) is forced to find a priest capable of bringing the dead back to life, a process that can take several real life hours to accomplish.

Graphics: While they were fairly spectacular at the time (and, in my view better looking than the newer Neverwinter Nights), the game has not aged well in terms of how it looks. While this is a fairly shallow complaint, plenty of games have been lambasted for their looks so it warrants a bullet point of it's own. People complained about the graphics in Dragon Age and Fallout 3 and either game is far prettier than anything one will see in Baldur's Gate.

Mechanics: The game uses the D&D rules. 2nd edition if memory serves. Even the slimmed down interpretation Baldur's Gate uses comes with head crushing depth. The manual that shipped with the game is longer than your average novel after all. What's more, the actual act of playing the game involves tediously selecting actions (without the benefit of a queue) and watching as the game makes explicit rolls to determine success. What active participation the player has is hardly entertaining.

Standing in opposition to this is the game's narrative and characters. Only one game managed to deliver a better cast and story (the equally old and equally flawed in the same fashion Planescape Torment). If one can overcome all those problems above, then the game is absolutely worth playing. I just don't think most people are willing to do so when the act of playing is aggravating more often than not and at it's best can be described as "tedious but functional".

 

[MisterShine]

Basically I'm asking if it has aged well.

At the end of Throne of Baal you'll lean back in your chair and repeat your username.

So about that good.

And It's hands down, without a doubt, the best RPG series I've ever played.

I still have your Let's Play bookmarked. Occasionally I feel like I should just let the past go and move on, but... dammit, it's just too hard!

 

[Athinira]

There wasn't anything else. Plenty of things are successful in the absence of competition. Talbetop RPGs were successful in the absence of video games. Once D20 was out, every game moved to that and not a single one looked back.

---

First of all, damage. Even starting with max HP at first level, with most classes, a single hit from even a low level enemy can kill you. Even 3rd edition didn't fix this, it took 4th ed to do Con+Class for level 1 HP rather than HP+Con bonus.

Based off damage, extreme reliance on healing magic. You needed as many CLW spells memorised as you could to survive, and for that you needed to be a cleric, which pretty much ruled out all other classes. This was the same in BG as in 2E. At least in BG you could do some cheating by re-rolling stats, exporting and importing and having a bit better of a start.

No level scaling, you go off the set path for your characters and you'll stumble into an encounter intended for much later that you have no way of winning. Ends up railroading you in the same way that a dick GM would.

You didn't even have the same type of flexibility that AD&D had. Anyone who goes back to AD&D from d20 or 4e does so because the later editions have rules that are restrictive and prevent creativity. With Command you could only say "Die", you had no access to Climb Walls thanks to the game not being able to handle it, it ended up being the worst of AD&D and the worst of d20.

--

I know 2e inside and out. I've got multiple PHBs, and a ton of supplemental materials for the FR. I played the hell out of BG when it first came out, and had fun then. That was before I knew about better systems. Some games just end up obsolete, and BG is one of them.

First of all: You have only explained why you didn't like the system. You haven't explained why it makes the game bad (or "obsolete" if you prefer). You've only explained that the newer systems obsoleted the game in your eyes and pointed out some flaws with the old system. To me, and pretty much every other poster in this thread, the old system is still perfectly FUNCTIONAL and makes for a very interesting game, and the rest of the gameplay is still, in our eyes, superior to many other games out there (including games that arrived later). I can't name a single RPG besides the Mass Effect series that i enjoyed more than Baldur's Gate, and time hasn't changed that.

Second of all, some of what you are saying is incorrect. Playing on standard difficulty, i can only remember one enemy that could one-shot you early on in the game, and that was Anhkegs.

Third: Lets get something straith right now: Level scaling is BAD for a game. Happy you just dinged? Well, so did every monster in the world.

Shamus Young have explained why this is bad if you have ever read his articles. Baldur's Gate, just like World of Warcraft, is a game about exploration, and sometimes you will stumble into an area where you are outmatched and die. WoW and Baldur's Gate is amongst a few of the games that actually pulls that off pretty well, where dying (as part of exploration) is a part of the game. Yahtzee also explained once that coming back later in a game to beat the crap out of a monster that kicked your ass earlier on feels good. Baldur's Gate and WoW both pulls that off.

And saying that Baldur's Gate by that way "railroads" you into a set path is also incorrect. Sure, the game has a linear story, but the amount of sidemissions that you can choose to do (or not to do) is astounding. And compared to other RPG titles one thing about sidemissions stick out in Baldur's Gate: THEY ACTUALLY MATTER and they actually take you to new locales. Greater side side missions pretty much always yield a great treasure in the form of items/gold/XP, as opposed to all of those modern day RPG's like Dragon Age where you only find crap, crap and more crap, and where the payoff for doing side missions is so small (in both XP/treasure) that you might as well not bother. On that subject, if you want to talk about a game that railroads you, Dragon Age is a perfect example. It's 10 times more linear than Baldur's Gate. At least Baldur's Gates sidemissions takes you to new areas most of the time, while in Dragon Age you typically solve them "along the way" to your real goal.

Bottom line is that the AD&D combat system in Baldur's Gate is perfectly functional. It might not be perfect, but the construction of the game actually compensates and makes skill matter. If you face a difficult enemy, the game can actually let you pull off some amazing tactics (or cheap tricks) that might grant you victory, and nothing feels better than oursmarting a superior foe (or outsmarting the game), which just contributes to the fun for the smart player. And just to top it off, ignoring the excellent story, humor and setting, the rest of the game design is still way superior to pretty much every RPG that has ever come after it.

You think the game is obsolete. I can find several people in just this thread that disagrees with you, and this has NOTHING to do with Rose Colored glasses.

 

[squid5580]

It's an amazing game with a great story but you really have to be into that type of game and storyline.

If you're not a fan of The Forgotten Realms, I'd recommend trying out Neverwinter Nights first to see if you like the gameplay mechanics.

Or Icewind Dale. Pretty much the same style of game as BG with your own party instead of picking them up on your travels. A system which I prefered over BGs. No one was cutting out on me cuz they didn't like another.

 

[Delusibeta]

First of all: You have only explained why you didn't like the system. You haven't explained why it makes the game bad

Yes I did. You're just dense, and a waste of my time.

Do have to side with Athinira here. Half of your complaints are about things that don't work in video games (level scaling, as anyone who played vanilla Oblivion will tell you, and ability to do anything with is a pain in the arse to program for and will probably result in more glitches than the average Bethesda RPG if you do attempt to do it), and the other half is opinion.

 

[Athinira]

First of all: You have only explained why you didn't like the system. You haven't explained why it makes the game bad

Yes I did. You're just dense, and a waste of my time.

I'll repeat again: If the game was enjoyable (and still is enjoyable, which it is for plenty of people), then the system isn't broken. Period. The only thing you've managed to explain is why YOU don't like it.

The fact that you can't even sit down and refute my arguments just proves it. Brushing it aside as me being dense and a waste of time just doesn't work, sorry.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Its weird, but this thread appeared the same day I installed BG2 on my new laptop...

So from me... Its a big recommendation...