Is Baldur's Gate worth playing?

[moretimethansense]

Now? Probably not.

Here's the thing. I played and loved the BG series. I still replay it occasionally. But I've go the nostalgia factor going. Someone who doesn't have that? I imagine it'll prove really stiff and more than a little annoying unless you have a thing for old-style RPGs.

I beg to differ, I only started playing it aboua a year or two ago and I love it, 'cept for the pathfinding, that sucks, hard.

Second Edition D&D (Or AD&D as it was known at the time) was kind of a mess, some of the fights can be punishingly difficult, and the game moves at a glacial pace (especially the first one. BG2 picks up the pace better, but it can still seem to drag on a lot) The interface is also really limited by today's standards.

This is a fair critisism however.
Luckily my mate had an AD&D players book in his loft(not sure why), it's a damn lifesaver, but the beholder cult still made me weep.

 

[Eggbert]

Now? Probably not.

Here's the thing. I played and loved the BG series. I still replay it occasionally. But I've go the nostalgia factor going. Someone who doesn't have that? I imagine it'll prove really stiff and more than a little annoying unless you have a thing for old-style RPGs.
*snip

As a dude without any form of nostalgia going on, I can say it's still enjoyable. However, not having touched a D&D handbook does make it confusing.

 

[Slycne]

snip

So the issue real just boils down to that you are more closely aligned as a narrative gamer where as I, and I imagine a few other people in this thread, prefer more player agency in their games. Neither is "better", because it's purely subjective, and your opinions would likely make for a more enjoyable experience for you and players like you, but they wouldn't necessarily do the same for us.

The narrative gamer believes that everything is ultimately behooved to the story.

The player agency gamer appreciates that the game gives them as much freedom as possible.

Why don't I break down a few of the mechanics we were discussing and maybe you can get a better sense where we are coming from.

Health, Dying & Starting Party
You have mentioned that the game can be very punishing at early levels if you don't make the right choices. Which you view as being a waste of time because you want to see the story continue to advance, not be bogged down with dramatically untimely deaths. We enjoy that the game gives us the a certain degree of freedom to make choices and live with the consequences. The charismatic gnome fighter is probably a pretty poor starting character, but at least we are presented the option for it rather than having more carbon copied and balanced templates. On the flipside, having a smaller number of balanced characters would make for an easier gaming experience for the narrative mindset.

Level Scaling
To you level scaling means that it allows you to approach the game your way and focus on the story, which in your words was the only thing of worth. That it frees you from the railroad. To us, level scaling undermines our choices, which is the very core of what we are looking for in the experience. It doesn't matter if I decide to help X because I know they will help me with Y because Y will be exactly the same as X. The dragon isn't hard because it's a railroad, it's hard because it's a freaking dragon. Your perception is that it's a stepping stone in the story, but ours is that it's a whole new challenge to be tackled how we choice to do so - maybe that means going to run another quest, changing our tactics, finding a new party member, experimenting with our spells, etc. The key is that it presents choices not that it bends over just so we can get on with the narrative.

So I hope that helps you get a better understanding of why we still enjoy this game.

 

[migo]

Oh it's frustrating to be sure, but it also gives a good sense of humble beginnings, a perilous journey, and later on as you both become more familiar with the game and your character gains in power, a fantastic sense of advancement.

No it doesn't, it just wastes a whole bunch of your time until you get around to what you're going to do anyway.

If it was a "waste of time", then people wouldn't do it.

People do sidequests or explore a game because they find it INTERESTING, because some people are curious. If you define exploration of an interesting world as a "Waste of time", then the problem is you, not the game

That you don't feel the same sense of advancement and gain in power as he (and i) feel is a problem with you not finding this kind of game enjoyable anymore. We actually enjoy it, and most other people in this thread still do, so apparently there is something special about it that goes beyond wasting time.

Not getting killed by wolves right after Imoen shows up and before you meet Montaron is not a sidequest. All you end up doing is save and reload until you finally get to the Friendly Arm Inn with everyone still alive.

snip

So the issue real just boils down to that you are more closely aligned as a narrative gamer where as I, and I imagine a few other people in this thread, prefer more player agency in their games. Neither is "better", because it's purely subjective, and your opinions would likely make for a more enjoyable experience for you and players like you, but they wouldn't necessarily do the same for us.

The narrative gamer believes that everything is ultimately behooved to the story.

The player agency gamer appreciates that the game gives them as much freedom as possible.

Why don't I break down a few of the mechanics we were discussing and maybe you can get a better sense where we are coming from.

I know where you're coming from, I like both. The thing is AD&D was designed for sandbox style play, where disposable characters are the norm. Baldur's Gate has a strict story that doesn't allow for a disposable main character, so the mechanics mesh really badly with the story.

Health, Dying & Starting Party
You have mentioned that the game can be very punishing at early levels if you don't make the right choices. Which you view as being a waste of time because you want to see the story continue to advance, not be bogged down with dramatically untimely deaths. We enjoy that the game gives us the a certain degree of freedom to make choices and live with the consequences. The charismatic gnome fighter is probably a pretty poor starting character, but at least we are presented the option for it rather than having more carbon copied and balanced templates. On the flipside, having a smaller number of balanced characters would make for an easier gaming experience for the narrative mindset.

If you had an actually open sandbox where you can go anywhere you want, whenever you want, and have threats of varying difficulty everywhere, that might be reasonable. That's not the case, you get railroaded along the story with too powerful enemies if you stray from the set path. That's a tactic used by dick DMs in AD&D. Emulating an asshole Dungeon Master in a computer game doesn't make the computer game good. There are several Forgotten Realms based MUDs (or were a decade ago), that I played that were pretty true to the AD&D mechanics, and were even more punishing than Baldur's Gate, but they worked because they were true sandboxes and didn't have any sort of narrative. Baldur's Gate is a narrative game, so I want the mechanics to support that. Sandbox mechanics in a narrative works really badly with a computer, because unlike a tabletop RPG, the story can't be created on the fly.

Level Scaling
To you level scaling means that it allows you to approach the game your way and focus on the story, which in your words was the only thing of worth. That it frees you from the railroad. To us, level scaling undermines our choices, which is the very core of what we are looking for in the experience. It doesn't matter if I decide to help X because I know they will help me with Y because Y will be exactly the same as X. The dragon isn't hard because it's a railroad, it's hard because it's a freaking dragon. Your perception is that it's a stepping stone in the story, but ours is that it's a whole new challenge to be tackled how we choice to do so - maybe that means going to run another quest, changing our tactics, finding a new party member, experimenting with our spells, etc. The key is that it presents choices not that it bends over just so we can get on with the narrative.

Level scaling is necessary in a computer RPG with a set story. You can't work without it because it kills replayability. With an actual Tabletop RPG, the GM can work around dangerous encounters and have you face the Tarrasque at 2nd level while still giving you a viable option to escape and have interesting things happen. That wouldn't work with a computer.

So I hope that helps you get a better understanding of why we still enjoy this game.

It's not that, you're simply speaking from nostalgia. Someone who hasn't played BG before and has played subsequent, better RPGs will be underwhelmed by it. I'm not knocking on your enjoyment of the game, I'm giving the OP the straight goods, which he deserves.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

The original Baldur's Gate games for PC are definitely worth playing, but everyone's advice about the D&D 2nd ed rules is solid. If you don't know how the rules work, it's gonna be hard to build a decent team. Two things that shocked the hell out of me when I tried playing these games before actually playing D&D:
1. Your armor class gets better the lower the number.
2. Clerics (healers) can wear heavy armor.
Also, like the others, I have to recommend Planescape: Torment. Also, I'd recommend the Icewind Dale games, particularly the second; Icewind Dale II upgraded to the 3rd ed rules which tend to make a lot more logical sense.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I should say yes. I've played through both BGs in the last couple of years and in my opinion they've aged well. The rulesystem is a bit archaic but it's perfectly functional once you get the hang of it. It's a good idea to keep some walkthroughs handy because the game can be mercilessly unforgiving at certain points and necessitates a specific combination of abilities/tactics/party members to get through. If you can put up with all this - and you may not, fair enough - the world and the story is still incredible after all these years. The moment when I knew I was glad I started playing again was when Adjantis approached my party outside the city and called out 'Halt! Be thou friend or foe?' and I spotted the snarky response: 'When was the last time anyone answered foe, tin-head?'

You start off with two thieves and a necromancer helping you out, meaning you need to be a cleric or you might not even make it to the Friendly Arm Inn. AD&D was designed with parties in mind, and despite Clerics being the most powerful class in 2e at low levels, nobody wanted to be the healing tent. Most people who pick up BG won't be taking this into account either and will end up dying a lot.

Uh... I've never played as a cleric in BG 1 and I always made it to the Friendly Arm Inn without hassle. There's only one thing that can really destroy you on that path, and that's the Ogre, but you have to wander off a bit to get to that. The game is kind enough to provide your character with some basic healing spells once you start having dreams, so you're not helpless for healing. The fight with the mage at the Inn doesn't get any easier if you have a cleric, because you basically have to just hope that you and enough guards can kill him before he gets off a magic missile. That was a poor design choice, I have to say. Having a cleric is no help though if you are feared and can't cast spells.

 

[migo]

Wolves can do it too. They can do enough damage to kill you assuming a couple lucky rolls.

The thing with the mage is after the first time I ran into him I always had Montaron and Imoen hide before the conversation started, and have Xzar cast Larloch's Minor Drain right off the bat. Could usually kill him before anything goes off.

And that gets tedious too, rather like Dead Rising, where you have to get killed in an encounter first to really understand how to deal with it, and while Dead Rising lets you automatically export and import your character, BG requires you to do a lot of saves and exports to have the same benefit.

 

[Greenhand]

YES.
Its fun, reasonably atmospheric and ordering six people around is a nice little power-trip if you're into that sort of thing. So... yeah, I'd say that it is definitely worth playing, especially if you are a fan of the Forgotten Realms setting or grew up reading Dnd books.

 

[Athinira]

Not getting killed by wolves right after Imoen shows up and before you meet Montaron is not a sidequest. All you end up doing is save and reload until you finally get to the Friendly Arm Inn with everyone still alive.

Except that this doesn't happen, not even on the hardest difficulty. In fact, getting to your two first possible companions besides Imoen is a very easy matter, as simple as following the road.

I can kill Anhkegs with a party of level 1's on the hardest difficulty. You are making the game sound way harder than it is. It's a game for intelligent players no doubt, but as soon as you understand even the most basic mechanics, you (as a player) can come up with intelligent solutions to almost any given fight, including kiting, tanking, LoS abuse (give or take).

I know where you're coming from, I like both. The thing is AD&D was designed for sandbox style play, where disposable characters are the norm. Baldur's Gate has a strict story that doesn't allow for a disposable main character, so the mechanics mesh really badly with the story.

That has to be some of the worst bulls*** i have read yet.

I will admit that it has always been a bit strange to me that the main character isn't allowed to die in BG when resurrection is possible (the obvious answer is that it's a general limitation of the engine, but that still shouldn't prevent BioWare from sticking a timer on resurrecting the main character before gameover), but saying that this makes the mechanics mesh badly with the story is just lunacy. How exactly? Please explain.

If you had an actually open sandbox where you can go anywhere you want, whenever you want, and have threats of varying difficulty everywhere, that might be reasonable. That's not the case, you get railroaded along the story with too powerful enemies if you stray from the set path. That's a tactic used by dick DMs in AD&D. Emulating an asshole Dungeon Master in a computer game doesn't make the computer game good.

I'll repeat again: You are making the game harder than it really is.

Even playing on the original engine, the first Baldur's Gate isn't that hard. It's just about luring out the mechanics.

Baldur's Gate was praised by pretty much all critics for being so open-ended and allowing for such epic exploration. How you can be the only person that feels "railroaded" by the difficulty is beyond me, unless you are just very very bad at the game (which after all your posts starts to seem like a reasonable conclusions to me, no offense). Even the most powerful enemies in the game can be defeated by a party that is way below the intended level for killing that enemy by using the right tactics, even if those tactics had to be very advanced in extreme situations.

Level scaling is necessary in a computer RPG with a set story. You can't work without it because it kills replayability.

Ironic statement considered Baldur's Gate is one of the most replayable games ever.

Level scaling is bad. Period. It's not "necessary" in any way, and Shamus Young explained pretty well in this article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6690-Ding-Now-You-Suck-Less.2]why it's a terrible messup.

A properly balanced game will manage to either provide some challenge if the player is above the intended level (or keep the battles or what lies beyond interesting at least), or give players ways to defeat the enemy if they are below level. Baldur's Gate in particular pulls this off, because as mentioned, the game lets you defeat even the most powerful foes with the right tactics and a minimal (underleveled) toolset if necessary.

The proof: There are people who have defeated Baldur's Gate without a party using only a single character. Try that in Dragon Age and see how far you get. If Baldur's Gate was even remotely as hard as you make it out to be, that would be impossible. Baldur's Gate is one of the few games who actually allow REALLY skilled or creative players to shine.

It's not that, you're simply speaking from nostalgia. Someone who hasn't played BG before and has played subsequent, better RPGs will be underwhelmed by it. I'm not knocking on your enjoyment of the game, I'm giving the OP the straight goods, which he deserves.

Given that I'm playing Baldur's Gate right now (yes, at the time of writing), and that I'm enjoying it about just as much now where i consider myself a pro/good at the game as i was back when i was a newbie and got kicked around almost as much as you apparently seemed to do, then i can definitely conclude that it has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to do with Baldur's Gate just being damned well designed, and you just refusing to see it.

The only way a player will be underwhelmed by it because of subsequent RPG is because those RPG's doesn't demand much in terms of creativity and skill. That doesn't make them better games. Good games reward skill and Baldur's Gate manages that better than any subsequent RPG ever designed. Dragon Age, with it's terribly balanced difficulty, limited party decisionmaking and worse (Yes much worse) combat system needs to work harder if it wants to even compare.

Ninja Gaiden is also a very hard game, but it still recieved great appreciation from reviewers and gamers alike because the difficulty was never UNFAIR. You were only ever punished for your mistakes, and in the same way, Baldur's Gate is only difficult if you run head first into every battle without using your brain first. That doesn't make it bad.

I appreciate that you are giving OP your honest opinion, but allow me just to state it right here (with no offense intended): You are clueless about what constitutes good game design, and consequently what constitutes a good game.

 

[cefm]

BG1 is good. BG2 is great.

The things that made them both wonderful games are still there - the plot, voice acting, music, character development, depth. The graphics are actually still really damn good for the type of game it is. It shows a large playable screen inside an immense world with pretty highly detailed art on all surfaces, with many moving units on it. It's zoomed out a bit more than a first person perspective game but does rather well for what it aims to show you.

The main complaint of most users who had a negative experience is that learning the ropes of AD&D 2nd Edition can be tough. As a former D&D nerd I might know that you need a thief to detect traps and pick locks, or that a dual-class fighter/mage will suck at later levels and take forever to level-up, or which enemies are way out of my league and should be avoided. A brand new player might not. But there are plenty of ways around that, and a deep or complicated character and combat system isn't a bad thing in itself - it is what makes different characters different and what provides the challenge and tactical balance. If you don't know AD&D 2nd Edition, just look up a walkthrough (if GameBanshee is still running it was THE best place to go for BG info) that suggests a good party and character build, and get to it!

I'd be re-playing BG2 still but I don't want to lose my job and it also my new computer (vista be damned forever!) is fighting with the old programming and doesn't want to cooperate.