Is Baldur's Gate worth playing?

[Slycne]

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.

4e also doesn't give you a Con bonus to HP after level one though, only a preset increase based on class/role. 4e is specifically designed to give you the feel of approximately a 4th level fight from other editions at level 1.

As someone who plays in and enjoys campaigns in both B/X D&D and 4e, what does it matter though? That doesn't make either system right/better. Earlier editions of D&D were designed to be bloody, 1st level adventurers were not heroes - they were practically crazy lunatics that ventured into the darkest corners of the world for a chance of fame and glory. Our B/X D&D campaign is actually starting to reach max level, haha caps at 14, but my magic-user is that much more enjoyable a character because I managed to keep him alive after starting the game with 4 hp.

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.

Taking a class in your party that specialize in a critical role is not bad design, that's proper planning. What other RPGs are you playing that this isn't the case?

You referenced 4e, but even that game still behooves you to bring a balanced party of defender, controller, striker and leader. Even with the change to slightly more self reliant mechanics with healing surges and second wind, you still end up needing a dedicated leader/healer.

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.

Yeah because nothing is more fun than that skeleton you barely defeated at 1st level still being able to kick your ass at 20. By eliminating level scaling, yes you open up the possibility of being able to wander into something you shouldn't, but it also frees the play up to set their own pace of the game. One of my most satisfying and memorable gaming experiences was coming up with a clever amalgamation of magic items and spells to defeat the Demi-Lich in Baldur's Gate 2 long before I should have been able too. On the flip side I gave up on Oblivion because I felt that the level scaling mechanics break the immersion of the experience, all the enemies in the world should not hit harder because I skilled up stealth or athletics.

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.

This is true of every tabletop system that's even been translated to a digital medium. The simple fact is that no videogame is going to be as flexible a game that's framed in your imagination.

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.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I would challenge your with my own on both fronts that earlier editions of D&D are inferior and that Baldur's Gate is obsolete. Too each their own though.

 

[Cursed Frogurt]

The original Baldur's Gate is probably my favorite WRPG ever. It's the closest thing to D&D in videogame form.

What really differentiates it from every fantasy RPG out there is that it's "humble". Meaning every quest feels dangerous and you're not some GOD-LIKE being. A magical sword is a big deal where as most games you wouldn't pick up a +3 mace that deals fire, ice and acid damage because you got something better before the end of the second dungeon.

 

[Rzepik]

IMO it's the best cRPG.
Excellent free exploration - plot driven gameplay balance, you don't see that at all nowadays.

 

[SevenForce]

The only reason i would ever recommend not playing BG or BG II is because those two games will ruin all other games - especially RPGs - forever.

The first RPG I ever played was BGII. Huge mistake.

Also, i definitely recommend downloading a mod that updates the engine to the BG II version. The BG engine is a bit rubbish in comparison. You need the expansion pack to do this, you may also need BGII, but i'm not sure.

Edit: you'll find the mod i'm talking about here: http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=143&Itemid=98

 

[Steven Kilpatrick]

I'm mixed about this.

The guys moved on and crafted much better games since then using the same basic ideas. If you have to play a game using that engine I'd suggest Planescape: Torment (which you can get over at GoG.com as well).

Let me be clear: I own BG. Not some downloaded copy for nostalgia--I'm talking it sits next to my original multi-CD copy of Planescape from the late 1990s (I think?). However, I love the guys over at Bioware and I really do believe that they've learned a lot since their time at Interplay. I also disagree with the notion that BG is better than Dragon Age.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better" but I'd say that the PC version of Dragon Age is on par with BG in terms of strategy and gameplay, but shames BG in terms of storytelling. Then again, I'd still pit Planescape (which uses a modified version of the BG engine) against any story based game ever made.

So, if you're going back in time to RPGs of 10 years ago, try out Planescape. Baldur's Gate is more like a museum piece at this point.

 

[Steven Kilpatrick]

Let me follow that up by saying this: If you're talking about how I felt the first time I played it, it was (at the time) the most overwhelming sense of freedom and awe that I'd ever had with an RPG. It's the reason I gave Planescape a try in the first place and it was so good that it made me a lifelong fan of the people involved.

There aren't a lot of things that come out these days that create that kind of longevity and unapologetic wonder. I'd say Blizzard has also got their hooks into me in the same way. I might even include Bethesda--as they always manage to trick me into spending decades of my life exploring worlds that don't exist just to find better plates for my in game houses.

If you could go back to a world where games hadn't evolved and play BG ten years ago, it'd be a waste not to. I just can't promise you that my love for the game, my memories of the game, and my unwavering sense of wonder could ever transfer to the modern day. I wish it could. Everyone deserves to experience a game like that--but I think BG's time has passed as a centerpiece for wonder and is simply faded to the realm of quiet wisdom.

Still--it's not an expensive game these days--so no matter who's right, you couldn't go wrong to see what you think.

 

[Lord Legion]

Play the 2nd one, it is better, and fills you in on the backstory pretty well and quick.

Also, don't do what I did and right off the bat try to help a nice ghost man find his golden bones... DO NOT DO THIS AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!!

I still have nightmares...

pps, use Rhialto's Wild mage mod, most fun you will have with that class

 

[strum4h]

Oh god Baldurs Gate 2 was the most fun game I played way back when. GO FOR THE EYES BOO GO FOR THE EYES RAAAH!

 

[Littaly]

Baldur's Gate 2?
YES! Hell to the fuckedy yes! Y-E-S!
It's dated, but far from outdated, if you know what I mean. It's got mechanics that may be a bit hard to get into (pause based gameplay, no regenerating health, a set amount of spells/day instead of regenerating mana), especially if you're schooled with Mass Effect and Dragon Age. But like I said, they don't work any worse than what you're used to seeing from modern day RPGs. But then again, what difference does it make, it's one of the best games ever made. Play it. If you don't like it you can always tell the Internet how different you are

Baldur's Gate (1)?
Uhhh. Harder to say, it's definitely aged worse than it's sequel and is far from as good. The thing is, I think Baldur's Gate 2 is going to be much more fun if you've gone through Baldur's Gate first. It gets you acquainted with the world (if you aren't already), your characters and the characters around you. It's not necessary to have played it, but if you (like me) have a fix for those kinds of things, I definitely recommend it. Use a walkthrough if it starts feeling like a drag, you'll breeze through it pretty quickly.

 

[Firenz]

grab it on GOG.com would be my recommendation.

But I'd be inclined to tell you to get Icewind Dale (as it's not as good a story but slightly more user friendly) or Arcanum (for a similar reason, although it's not as D&Desque and give those a shot before embarking on the awesomeness (and vastness) that is BGI and/or II as you can't play the first but not the second!

 

[OliverTwist72]

If you like D&D it is worth playing. Hell if you like any sort of tabletop game it is worth playing. If you think you'd enjoy playing the precursor to Neverwinter Nights it is worth playing. If you like d20's it is worth playing (they are pretty sexy). If you like really really really long RPGs it is worth playing (although I guess back in the day 60-80 hours wasn't too bad) that said if you skip all the sidequests and junk you can get it done MUCH faster, I've heard somewhere around 15-20 hours but I've never done this personally. That being said I would suggest you play BG2, or Planescape Torment. BG2 is a little more streamlined and Planescape Torment the combat is a little more simplified.

All in all tho, all 3 are pretty good games. If you're not sure I would suggest BG2 first. Baldur's Gate is pretty impossible if you don't know what you're doing. Of course if you like that sort of thing have at it =)

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I?m playing it and I think it?s pretty good.

In terms of accessibility it?s difficult though. So I?m going to recommend, Planescape Torment, just because I think its better. Its interface and mechanics are a bit more refined, easier to follow and figure out, and it?s story and characters are better than great. After thatjump into Baldur's Gate or don't, it depends what you like and want from the games.

Planescape = story and character interaction are king, dark humour is super funny time (a sarcastic floating skull is your best friend ever), talk to everything that isn?t immediately trying to kill you, fighting stats can sod off because your going to be using magic eventually anyway because magic is awesome.

Baldur?s = do not multiclass, fighting stats are important, find yourself a bow and arrow (when your first starting out) and keep your distance because the enemies absolutely will destroy you, the wolves over there are bass ass mother fuckers and you should have already started running, oh and by the way we have a story and some nice characters but omg run from the wolves first.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Honestly in my opinion, once you get everyone past Level 1 (no small feat) the game gets at least a bit more manageable. I died constantly early on, but once you can have a few characters who can take some hits, you'll survive more often.

 

[Steven Kilpatrick]

I agree with Purple Platypus.

Just keep in mind that if you happen to be a player who prefers ranged combat, it's probably the one place that Planescape doesn't do as well because the camera is moved in a bit.

In Baldur's it's completely the opposite, as PP says, you use range to your advantage a lot (as you would in a grid based actually game of D&D).

 

[migo]

As someone who plays in and enjoys campaigns in both B/X D&D and 4e, what does it matter though? That doesn't make either system right/better. Earlier editions of D&D were designed to be bloody, 1st level adventurers were not heroes - they were practically crazy lunatics that ventured into the darkest corners of the world for a chance of fame and glory.

This works very badly with a planned story arc as is the case with Baldur's Gate. The original HP system was designed with disposable characters in mind, which would be far more suitable in a game like Jagged Alliance.

Taking a class in your party that specialize in a critical role is not bad design, that's proper planning. What other RPGs are you playing that this isn't the case?

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.

You referenced 4e, but even that game still behooves you to bring a balanced party of defender, controller, striker and leader. Even with the change to slightly more self reliant mechanics with healing surges and second wind, you still end up needing a dedicated leader/healer.

Which means you build the party from the start, and don't encounter a random selection of potential party members who help you out. It's interesting from a story perspective but works horribly with AD&D.

Yeah because nothing is more fun than that skeleton you barely defeated at 1st level still being able to kick your ass at 20.

The worst thing about Freelancer is once you go back to the starting area all the enemies are dead easy. It's a huge pain in the ass for Final Fantasy X too. Not having level scaling is simply just railroading.

By eliminating level scaling, yes you open up the possibility of being able to wander into something you shouldn't, but it also frees the play up to set their own pace of the game.

No, no, no! It doesn't free you at all. You're only able to take the path the devs set for you, instead of really going off to do your own thing. Level scaling frees you from the need to grind, so you can just deal with the story (which is the only thing that's good about BG anyway).

One of my most satisfying and memorable gaming experiences was coming up with a clever amalgamation of magic items and spells to defeat the Demi-Lich in Baldur's Gate 2 long before I should have been able too. On the flip side I gave up on Oblivion because I felt that the level scaling mechanics break the immersion of the experience, all the enemies in the world should not hit harder because I skilled up stealth or athletics.

You an also do that simply by making sure you have high ability scores to start with. Getting a Dwarf Fighter-Cleric with 18/00 Strength, 19 Con and 18 Wisdom gives you a huge leg up at the start of the game, and it lasts for the rest of it as well. That doesn't even take skill, it just takes patience for a broken ability score system (AD&D's was the worst, BECMI is much better).

This is true of every tabletop system that's even been translated to a digital medium. The simple fact is that no videogame is going to be as flexible a game that's framed in your imagination.

You should at least have a balanced and well thought out system then.

 

[The Madman]

By and large I'd say the Baldur's Gate series is the best overall rpg experience out there right now. There are games with take individual elements and do them better; Planescape: Torment for example has what many consider to be a better story while Temple of Elemental Evil boasts a better and more well balanced interpretation of D&D combat.

But Baldur's Gate is the series which does it all, and does it all extremely well! Solid combat mechanics, excellent story, good sense of humour as well as drama, and a cast of interesting characters all thrown together in the well established Forgotten Realms setting represented with beautiful 2D visuals (For the second game anyway, the first was much lower resolution and as a result never aged nearly as well!). And for that I love it!

That said Baldur's Gate can be difficult to get into at first. You will die, and die a lot. And if you're new to the D&D system and still learning the games basic mechanics you can expect to die so often early in the game many players unfortunately give up there, without even making it through the initial forest. But personally, I like that! 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. After all you start the game as little better than a simple peasant, on the same level as those NPC you see wandering towns, fodder for adventurers and villains alike in most games. But then you continue to persevere and push forward till eventually you realize you've done it, you're a certified sword & magic wielding badass who's risen from the dirt to become a prominent figure in the story. A story which embraces this concept and plays off it, empowering the player further!

Brilliant. That sense of advancement and adventure, growth both in terms of story and stats, is something I think far too many games today lack. It can be frustrating and annoying, certainly, but the payoff is entirely worth it! And I think that's where Migo most seems to disagree, but hell, everyones entitled to their own opinions.

 

[Athinira]

Let me be clear: I own BG. Not some downloaded copy for nostalgia--I'm talking it sits next to my original multi-CD copy of Planescape from the late 1990s (I think?). However, I love the guys over at Bioware and I really do believe that they've learned a lot since their time at Interplay. I also disagree with the notion that BG is better than Dragon Age.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better" but I'd say that the PC version of Dragon Age is on par with BG in terms of strategy and gameplay, but shames BG in terms of storytelling. Then again, I'd still pit Planescape (which uses a modified version of the BG engine) against any story based game ever made.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I'm going to tell you now why Baldur's Gate is not only better, but miles better, than Dragon Age. I'm going to try to keep it as short as possible.

1) Exploration
Dragon Age has minimal amounts of actual exploration. Most sidequests are solved "along the way" of the real quest/goal you are doing. Baldur's Gate, however, gives you a ton of areas to explore that aren't in any way tied to the main story.

More importantly though, Baldur's Gate actually REWARDS you for doing the sidequests or exploring. You can get some amazing armor and huge amounts of gold early on in the game if you spend 1-2 hours doing a few sidequests. At the Friendly Arm Inn for example, there lies a ring in the forest that sells for 9000g which you can pick up just at the start of the game. In Dragon Age, there is simply too far between the good rewards, and quests doesn't yield enough rewards for them to be worth doing, so why bother, besides measly amounts of XP? Baldur's Gate, just like WoW, actually isn't shy about handing you some "epics" for your trouble.

2) Pacing
Dragon Age takes a long time to complete, but not for the right reasons. The game just throws monsters at you en-masse and expect you to fight them all to complete the game, in a futile attempt to pad out gameplay. The game is longer, no doubt, but it consists too much of monster fight after monster fight. Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, is much more heavy on story, sidequests and dialogue (the latter being a result of the fact that the game doesn't need voice actors but uses a text-based system). In comparison, Dragon Age is paced completely wrong, and the player typically grows bored of all the fights pretty fast, to which the game replies "Well b*tch, there's more, so s*ck it up".

On a sidenote, Dragon Age also takes way too long to get going. Besides each Origin quest, the Ostagar/Korcari Wilds/Tower is like zZzZzZzZzZz after you've been through them once. Kinda like Irenicus Dungeon in BG2, except that someone was nice to write a mod called Dungeon be Gone that lets you skip it. Even without the mod though, the dungeon is still far more interesting than the first few hours of Dragon Age, and i really have trouble getting into Dragon Age again because i know i have to spend a few hours clearing that part.

3) Combat System and difficulty
Even the developers admitted that the Dragon Age combat system is a bit of a mess and uninteresting (which makes the pacing problem above even bigger), something they are fixing more in Dragon Age 2 though (luckily), but i want to talk about difficulty for a moment.

Baldur's Gate is no doubt difficult, especially if you're a complete newbie. However, once you learn all the tricks of the game (agro/tanking, preperation, each individual spell) it becomes a joy to play, because you realize that you can actually outsmart the game/the opponents and win with clever tactics, and while Dragon Age on the PC also allows this, it's not even on the same scale.

Then there is the fact that the difficulty in Dragon Age is balanced like an elephant on ice (something the developers yet AGAIN admitted). First of all, compared to Baldur's Gate, the 4 party member restriction makes it much harder to tailor parties. You typically need a tank, a rogue (for chests), a mage, and then a last character (also preferably a mage), and at least one of the mages should be capable of healing.

Second of all, the general difficulty setting of Dragon Age is regarded as too hard, as well as it fluctuates alot (also known as "Difficulty Curve is all over the place" according to Yahtzee). Especially during the early game, before you get to choose your party, it can be ridiculously difficult. I challenge you to set it to the hardest difficulty (PC version) and get through the early game without playing as a mage. Impossible? No, not by a long shot. Insanely difficult still? Yes.

Also, Dragon Age actually does, to a certain extend, use a level scaling system (which, as previously mentioned, is a bad idea). In addition, some areas are intentionally harder than others. When you actually get to the point in the game where you can choose between clearing the mage tower, Orzammar og the Elf Forest, the game doesn't tell you that the Mage Tower is what you are intended to clear first, since it's tuned to be the easiest, while the Elf Forest is tuned to be the hardest, leaving you with the illusion of a choice that is just going to cause frustration if you pick wrong. While Baldur's Gate also allows you to stumble into enemies too difficult for you to handle, those are typically limited to individual encounters and not entire parts of the game (and even then, Baldur's Gate makes it easier to backtrack so you can choose to do something else).

4) Replay Value
One thing about Dragon Age is that, even though you can only have 4 characters at a time, you can still pick up all available party-members and solve their individual quests etc. between missions. Baldur's Gate, however, still limits your party to 6 no matter what, which gives the game more replay value since it encourages you to play through the game with a different party, just to see the new sidequests they offer (as well as all the misc bonuses like Banter etc.). Thats not even taking into account the well-crafted mods that add new characters (like the Chloe or Tashia mods for BG2, which are amongst my favorites).

Another point is that the linearity of Dragon Age also limits replay-value. If you've played through Baldur's Gate, but haven't explored everything, it will encourage you to play it again to finish your exploration. Dragon age, as mentioned though, is much more linear, so the chance that you missed something important in the game is smaller. A huge game to explore that is interesting to explore (rather than being guided through) is a game with a lot of replay value.

I could go on, but i think i will cut it short here

 

[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.

 

[The Madman]

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.

And I disagree, as do the majority if this topic and Baldur's Gates reception are anything to go by. You'll find that happens quite often in life!

 

[Athinira]

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.