I am not saying that these games are bad. It's just...
Well, ok, starting from the beginning. I played original Baldurs Gate way after its release and way after playing other classics (Fallout, Planescape, etc). I didn't think that it was that good. Sure, the combat is solid, but it was a basic story about a bad guy and a "chosen one" PC in the most average setting ever, with none of the characters being actually interesting (maybe with an exception of Minsc and only because of his voice actor). All stats ever affected was combat, with charisma being a dump stat useful only for having better prices.
Basically, it was "murder hobos: the game".
But people praise not the first game, they praise the sequel. OK then, I played it, even transfered my save file that I had after finishing the first game. It was absolutely the same. Same average story, same non-interesting characters (well, Aerie and Jan were alright, I guess)mand once again all quests are solved by murdering stuff and taking a trinket of their bodies. Isn't it supposed to be the golden standard for RPG's, i.e. games with great stories and writing? Aren't RPG's mostly known for allowing players a diiferent approach to soving a problem, be it by combat, stealth or dialogue? Because throughout the whole game untill I stopped at Underdark and lost desire to continue I made only 3 choices: who is in my party, which stronghold I'll have and with who I'll do the quest: vampire or thieves. Oh, I also managed to convince a flying eye monster (beholder) to not fight me thanks to high Wisdom stat. Once.
I am not saying that those are bad games, but I simply cannot understand why are they praised so highly as RPG's, not as semi-turn based squad-based strategies, for example. Am I missing something? Or I simply had to grow up with them to have the same love for them as other people did? Because I've started playing games seriously only in my twenties, so I most definitely couldn't have had some sort of nostalgia for them. And yet, most of other old games that I played I liked a lot, just not the "pinnacle of RPGs".
Artifacts of their time mostly. At the time, the level of story and dialogue (and the NPC interactions with the player and each other) were fairly groundbreaking. 15 years later, not so much. Most of the writing is basically become the cliche Bioware-RPG trope (With the checklist NPC romance options, and the Good Guy/Pragmatic Guy/Eater of Children dialogue tree options)
There's a relatively rosy view on it too. The first one was solid, but non-spectacular. The second one has a well played villain, but barely is anything to do with the original to make it a solid sequel (much like the middle act of BG 2 is a random sidetrack into the Underdark with no relevance to anything). The Third part/Expansion thing is just a half-asssed boss rush that became the first case in the growing textbook of Bioware not knowing how to write endings.
Sure, I'll defend the Baldur's Gate series as my 5000th post, that seems appropriate somehow.
First thing to remember is that the BG series were pioneers of the modern rpg genre, they helped define what we think of as rpg today and had they not existed, it's no exaggeration to say the rpg genre as a whole would likely be very different from what we now know. While previous rpg like Ultima, Wizardry, and the old Gold Box games certainly helped define the genre it was BG perhaps moreso than any other franchise which ultimately gave it its current shape. People might argue Fallout was equally important around that formative time for the genre and I'd agree there's definitely an argument to be made there, but I'd still say BG was ultimately the most influential of the late 90's, early 2000's rpgs.
For that alone the franchise deserves huge credit. However you want more than just respect for its influence, you probably want to know why people like myself still love the game even after all these years and all the newer, more shiny rpg which have come since.
In no particular order:
1. Setting
Forgotten Realms might not be big nowadays, but around the time of BG's release it was pretty much the go-to for corny paperback fantasy novels and official D&D campaigns. If you were playing D&D and reading fantasy, you were probably familiar with the Forgotten Realms setting and of the many games which have used the setting, I'd argue none have done so nearly as well as the Baldur's Gate series. From the soaring fantastical magical duels to the majestic, conniving dragons and even the darker, more malicious elements of the setting BG explored everything that made that setting interesting. High fantasy at its absolute most corny best! Other rpg have used the setting very well, Obsidian's Mask of the Betrayer stands out as another fantastic use of the license and in typical Obsidian fashion, a great examination of some of the settings crueler and more morally ambiguous elements, but in doing so it also kinda sacrificed the settings more high-flying silly fun elements, something BG didn't do while also, if not quite as exhaustively, exploring those dark moments.
2. Diversity
This sort of ties into the setting element, but holy crap does the BG series as a whole have a ton of diversity. You will in your time with the franchise fight everything from dogs and bandits to Dragons, Beholder, and arch-mages. This diversity doesn't extend to just monsters and fight encounters either, you'll explore a number of the settings great locations from forests rife with bandits to bustling cities, ancient crypts, forgotten tombs, monsterous lairs, circus, arctic prisons, the Underdark, underwater cities, jungle islands, and dozens of other intriguing places. Characters as well, you'll encounter your usual assortment of fantasy tropes alongside everything else from long-established Forgotten Realms favourites like Drizzt and Elminster to fourth wall breaking mystics and even Biff the Understudy. Some of those characters are even companions.
Compare that to your typical modern rpg and frankly the newer games seem downright stifling in their lack of diversity.
3. Companions
Speaking of diverse characters, Baldur's Gate 2 in particular pretty much established the way we think of rpg companions in rpg today and it do so with spectacular style. While not every character might be to everyones tastes, the fact is there's a ton of them and they're all well written and interesting. Hell off the top of my head I can name: Edwin, Minsc (And Boo), Jaheira, Aerie, Viconia, Haer-Dalis (or spelt something like that), Imoen, Korgan, Mazzy, Keldorn, and Jan Jan, just from Baldur's Gate 2. I can describe their personality, their story arc, and even some of the quirks that make them memorable alongside their best role in an adventuring party.
By contrast as much as I enjoyed Pillars of Eternity, and I really did, I'm hard pressed to actually name a single character. I wont even bother trying to remember characters from other rpg I didn't think nearly as highly of like DA:Inquisition. And for reference, the last time I played BG2 was quite a few years ago long before I played either above two games I just mentioned.
4. Story
This sort of ties into the companions and setting in that the best parts of BG's story were the places it brought you and the people you'd meet. Which isn't to say the overarching story is a slouch either, in my opinion the main story is cheesy high fantasy fluff at its best, but I also realize in a world of Game of Thrones high fantasy isn't really popular anymore and with it the sorts of ridiculousness that BG's plot brings to the table. Rather than going into the main overarching story then I'll instead point out how Irenicus and Bodhi make for great, malevolent yet oddly understandable villains while a number of the other characters you'll meet throughout your journey did a great job of making it far more relatable (In my opinion obviously, as story is perhaps the most subjective of all things to praise) than many other modern rpg adventures or even just games in general. The twists and turns might not have always been unpredictable and the motivations sometimes murky, but I'll be damned if the BG series didn't deliver a number of great, impactful moments throughout.
If you want I can get far more in-depth about why I believe the BG series has a strong story as well as why I feel the characters are well done, but this post is long enough already so I'll only get into that if there's genuine interest.
5. Music
Damn do I love that orchestral score. It's high fantasy at its finest with a splash of Conan style percussion alongside some more tender musical moments.
I love the way it starts out all booming before slowly becoming sad, almost somber. High Fantasy adventure at its most adventurous and epic! This piece sounds like something from Conan and I love it for that. Malevolent yet dramatic. I like how this one is a softer, more gentle re-do of some of the earlier music.
6. Visuals
This mostly goes to Baldur's Gate 2, but for a game as old as it is it's aged remarkably well and stands as still one of the best examples of the 2D isometric perspective in gaming. Again this one is supremely subjective, but for myself I still find it beautiful and love the way the occasional 3D effect is used to make the already high resolution backgrounds appear even more vivid and alive.
7. Combat
And finally we've got the gameplay, what many consider the meat of the experience, and for its part it holds up quite well in spite of the use of 2nd edition D&D as its core ruleset. People will justifiably argue that it's unbalanced and wonky as all hell, easily exploited, sometimes a detriment, but honestly... and this is as usual quite subjective... I kinda like that about BG and D&D in general. I like that by the end of the game I'm unquestionably overpowered to the point where that's even part of the plot, I love that there are cheesy artifacts out there like Carsomyr which make Keldorn godlike when wielded. This isn't an online game, I don't feel it really needs to be balanced like one. Among other things that's a complaint I've had with a number of modern rpg, to use it as an example yet again Pillars of Eternity is so concerned about not letting you break the rules it forgets to realize that sometimes that's fun.
Diversity also comes into play here as well. The tactics you'll use to fight a pack of wolves are vastly different from what you'll use against a Beholder, who also requires vastly different tactics from fighting Mind Flayers or Dragons. Fighting a mage at high levels is also its own entire thing where you have to strip away their spell protections while dodging their attacks, meanwhile high level adversaries of other classes like that one ridiculous monk in Throne of Bhall also take an entirely different approach. Baldur's Gate has a ton of combat because its primarily a combat driven game, as are most D&D style adventures, and the huge cast of things you'll fight serves it very well here.
8. Progression
Then lastly this element ties into the above, the feeling of progression as you play through the series. I still can't think of any other rpg where you have such a clear sense of advancement as BG. In Witcher 3 for example you start as a badass and end as even more of a badass, same with Mass Effect or any other number of awesome games. Gameplay wise you'll gain new abilities to keep things fresh, but you're largely the same throughout both in-game and story-wise. By contrast in Baldur's Gate you will start as a weakling barely able to scrape by against a half-starved wolf and struggling to defend against lowly bandits, but by the end... oh jeez by the end both gameplay-wise AND story-wise you're a literal half-god of death and destruction and holy shit does it feel rewarding. To go from quick-saving in fights against wild dogs to sequences in Throne of Bhall where you take on a literal army with the armies generals scared knowing that they likely didn't stand a chance, damn does it feel impressive. It feels earned as well, the BG series from beginning to end isn't short and you'll have fought and scrapped by against a host of foes and monsters. When you have people trembling at the mention of your name by the end, it's an achievement.
In Conclusion
Do I think the BG series are perfect by any means? Not at all. I do wish there were more non-violent solutions to some scenario and I think the player character could have used more dialogue to truly flesh them out, meanwhile the 2nd edition D&D system also has some annoying flaws that bog it down in considerably and take a fair bit of time and effort to work past. Baldur's Gate 1 also drags on a little too long while Throne of Bhall, the series conclusion, feels like it needed more time to express what it was trying to do.
But as an overall experience I don't think there's a single other rpg and few games in general out there that quite capture the same sense of high adventure. I've said before that Fallout has a better sense of player choice, Planescape: Torment a better story, and Temple of Elemental Evil better isometric D&D combat, but none of those games as a whole hold up as well as Baldur's Gate does. It's the total package, and while it might not be exceptional in any one thing, everything it does it does remarkably well.
Eh. It's hard to judge these things sixteen, eighteen years outside of their context. In the context of modern gaming, the things that made Baldur's Gate so impressive - the companions, the multi-faceted side quests, the morality system - are now industry standards, even for games that aren't really RPGs.
I think the bar to use isn't "does it still impress me today" and more "is it still a solid game?" And it is; I know I replayed BGII and Planescape fairly recently and my reaction to both was "Huh, this is still really good," even once the rosey tint of nostalgia wore off.
When people describe the freedom and openness of Baldur's Gate, they aren't talking about how you approach conflict. You are absolutely right that the majority of solutions to conflict in the game is "Kill the guy", and while there are a few notable exceptions, those exceptions are not what earned the game it's praise. Think back to the time this was released, and you will see a progression from games where "Kill the guy" was all there was to a game.
The success and enduring legacy of Baldur's Gate not only as a turning point for CRPGs, but as a gold standard by which newer games often emulate is more deeply rooted in the game's customization and immersive aspects. While understandably, the narrative may not appeal to everyone, it really brought to the forefront the idea of things like companion personality, and developing relationships. Nowadays if you compare the likes of Jaheira to let's say Tali from Mass Effect, you may find the former lacking, but Baldur's Gate really started that trend.
Getting back to customization though, while the game didn't really introduce the idea of using Pen n Paper RPG campaigns or rules as the basis for it's backbone, it certainly pushed the envelope on how to do it. The sheer number of ways you can play the game are staggering with the ability to play one of a multitude of races and classes, tons of NPC companions to find and round out your 6 person party, a huge amount of interesting equipment and spells to discover, a fairly robust inventory system, level upgrade system, a UI with simple interface, and combat complexity that allows for a huge variety of solutions to the combat.
Baldur's Gate can't be everyone's cup of tea, even for fans of RPGs. It's position as a well lauded title that is still rather timeless has a lot to do with how well it handled all of it's individual parts in bringing together the big picture.
The original Baldur's Gate was somewhat innovative for it's time, but it isn't anything special by today's standards.
Baldur's Gate II is "more of the same". Which, at the time, was a good thing. This was before everything was milked to death in yearly releases which featured small, incremental improvements.
The high point in Baldur's Gate II is the development of the villain, Irenicus. As you progress through the main quest, you get to know more of his story, and see more of his villainy. This is designed to make his defeat more satisfying, his fall more pitiable. Also, the dude took your soul.
Combat in all the Infinity Engine games is mediocre at best. Magic is brokenly overpowered and nothing prevents you from engaging in the "5 minute adventuring day", allowing you rest or reload as often as needed. As a result, companions that can cast spells are flat out better than those who can't. Aerie is particularly potent, as she is a wizard/cleric. She is also the most annoying companion in any game. Ever. So I guess it balances out?
Another high point for Baldur's Gate II was the expansion, Throne of Bhaal. The story continued for another 20+ hours. At that point in time, expansions had never provided so much content. Granted, the Expansion brought on more magic, which further unbalanced the game. You could put the flaw on D&D itself here, since magic breaks the pen and paper game past level 9, so a game that goes to level 20 would include some really crazy sh*t. Well, crazy by D&D standards, which would be considered "tame" for Diablo or Final Fantasy franchises.
That's a different series. It has the name but it's a different type of game. If you've played Pillars of Eternity, that's much closer to the RPG series and it's successors.
OT I can't say I liked BG and I tried it within a year or so of it coming out. It did a lot of stuff that hadn't really been done before in one package and did it in what was pretty much the fantasy setting of the time. Baldur's gate, on the Sword coast, in Faerun. When half the people playing had their first DnD adventure somewhere on the Sword Coast, that's going to count for something.
Solid arguments. It didn't change my personal opinion on the game, but hey, at least I got some glimpse into what people think of it.
bastardofmelbourne said:
I know I replayed BGII and Planescape fairly recently and my reaction to both was "Huh, this is still really good," even once the rosey tint of nostalgia wore off.
And here is a funny thing, I played both games as an adult (well, by legal definition of it, at least) and while I think that PST still holds up (despite uniteresting combat), BG for me just didn't do it for me.
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I dunno. Most RPGs are bad. Baldur's Gate doesn't buck that trend, but it's better than Final Fantasy or Dark Souls or Fallout.
May I ask you to elaborate on that? I mean, I understand your point (though do not share your opinion about them being bad) about FF and DS: The former is basically a visual novel with combat and fighting (as all JRPGs are) and I can kind of see what you mean about latter, though it has an excuse of being Action RPG, not pure RPG.
But why, in your opinion, Fallout is worse than BG?
so basically, for you at least, it is not a good game by itself (by modern standards, at least), but rather a symbol of change in RPGs (or something like that)? Yeah, I can agree with that.
Solid arguments. It didn't change my personal opinion on the game, but hey, at least I got some glimpse into what people think of it.
bastardofmelbourne said:
I know I replayed BGII and Planescape fairly recently and my reaction to both was "Huh, this is still really good," even once the rosey tint of nostalgia wore off.
And here is a funny thing, I played both games as an adult (well, by legal definition of it, at least) and while I think that PST still holds up (despite uniteresting combat), BG for me just didn't do it for me.
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I dunno. Most RPGs are bad. Baldur's Gate doesn't buck that trend, but it's better than Final Fantasy or Dark Souls or Fallout.
May I ask you to elaborate on that? I mean, I understand your point (though do not share your opinion about them being bad) about FF and DS: The former is basically a visual novel with combat and fighting (as all JRPGs are) and I can kind of see what you mean about latter, though it has an excuse of being Action RPG, not pure RPG.
But why, in your opinion, Fallout is worse than BG?
so basically, for you at least, it is not a good game by itself (by modern standards, at least), but rather a symbol of change in RPGs (or something like that)? Yeah, I can agree with that.
Ever play Neverwinter Nights? If not, try it. I feel its the perfected form of Baldur's Gate. Only way BG is better I feel is the open setting, since NWN is comparably more "linear". Still open enough, but "chapters" in NWN prevent you from returning to the locations of previous chapters (unless part of the plot).
Almost identical in terms of the bones of the experience. Baldur's Gate 2 is superior to POE in terms of scope, setting and execution, but it had an existing IP to draw from and wasn't being spun out of whole cloth.
The topic here has merit...the infinity engine games are painfully dated and a lot of what made them special for their era has been done bigger and better by newer titles. Which is part of what makes willful anachronisms like POE so painful. You're not really GAINING anything by rolling the year back to 1999 with your game design, but you're losing a LOT. Witcher 3 told a better story than POE, with better voice acting, writing, characterization, and more assured delivery. It also did it in a gorgeous modern engine. What, exactly, was the benefit to POE other than nostalgia-bait? Or Wasteland 2? Or Shadowrun Returns? Or any of these antiquated hanger-ons that aim to recapture the spirit of an era in gaming by re-creating its gameplay and pretending the intervening decades never happened?
I have no issues with anyone finding them fun. I find them fun. I'm exactly the kind of aging gamer whose nostalgia they are trying to capitalize on. I kickstarted most of them. I don't understand praising them though. They do not merit praise. If anything, they merit the exact kind of cynicism they exhibited when they decided on this lazy, creatively bankrupt design paradigm.
Ever play Neverwinter Nights? If not, try it. I feel its the perfected form of Baldur's Gate. Only way BG is better I feel is the open setting, since NWN is comparably more "linear". Still open enough, but "chapters" in NWN prevent you from returning to the locations of previous chapters (unless part of the plot).
No, never played it, but I think I've bought it and got its sequel for free during GOG winter sale, so I think I'll give it a go eventually.
BloatedGuppy said:
What, exactly, was the benefit to POE other than nostalgia-bait? Or Wasteland 2? Or Shadowrun Returns? Or any of these antiquated hanger-ons that aim to recapture the spirit of an era in gaming by re-creating its gameplay and pretending the intervening decades never happened?
I have no issues with anyone finding them fun. I find them fun. I'm exactly the kind of aging gamer whose nostalgia they are trying to capitalize on. I kickstarted most of them. I don't understand praising them though. They do not merit praise. If anything, they merit the exact kind of cynicism they exhibited when they decided on this lazy, creatively bankrupt design paradigm.
I wouldn't go as far as defending their "innovativeness", because you are to some extend right, they are actually as old school as a game can be without going all Commodore.
What they do offer however (well, Shadowrun at least, I am yet to play WL2), and what I will defend, is a relaxing gameplay experience, where thanks to simplicity of a gameplay developers could afford to spend a bit more time and budget on writing good characters and stories. I mean, the crew you get in Shadowrun Dragonfall are the most interesting party I've had in any modern WRPG, with special mention going to Glory, my favourite combat medic/razorgirl.
I have absolutely zero doubts that all positive merits of Witcher games are true (hopefully I'll play them when I get more powerful PC for W3). However, well, I am not old enough as a gamer to actually have nostalgia for anything that is not Final Fantasy X. And you know what? I like Shadowrun. I like how it is a simply nicely written story with interesting characters, flexible leveling system and engaging, yet not hard combat.
Plus guns. Finally a RPG where I can make a character who shoots fireballs AND shoots guns.
I am not an opponent of fast-paced, dynamic gameplay. Heck, I adore Devil May Cry, Bayonetta and MGR: Revengeance. But I guess I preffer my RPGs to be slow and relaxing.
Ever play Neverwinter Nights? If not, try it. I feel its the perfected form of Baldur's Gate. Only way BG is better I feel is the open setting, since NWN is comparably more "linear". Still open enough, but "chapters" in NWN prevent you from returning to the locations of previous chapters (unless part of the plot).
Neverwinter Nights is amazing if you're playing online or doing a solo campaign, but unfortunately completely lacks party mechanics for that classic D&D storytelling experience. The main campaign is also remarkably poor and although the two expansions campaign, Hordes of the Underdark especially, are an improvement they still fail to reach the heights of other classic rpg campaign. Were it not for a dedicated mod community and numerous often excellent fan campaign NWN would likely have been overlooked and forgotten, but lucky for us it wasn't and the fan community has put out some amazing content.
Neverwinter Nights 2 has the party mechanics but at the cost of being nearly as 'tight' a gameplay experience. The main campaign for NWN2 is mediocre at best, but it is followed up by one of my personal favourites Mask of the Betrayer, which is a brilliant take on the Forgotten Realms setting and one of its more disturbing elements. Unfortunately NWN2 lacks the online community of the first game so there isn't nearly as much playing online, but still has a nice collection of mods and fan campaign that make it more than worth owning, my favourite being The Maimed God's Saga.
BloatedGuppy said:
Witcher 3 told a better story than POE, with better voice acting, writing, characterization, and more assured delivery. It also did it in a gorgeous modern engine. What, exactly, was the benefit to POE other than nostalgia-bait? Or Wasteland 2? Or Shadowrun Returns? Or any of these antiquated hanger-ons that aim to recapture the spirit of an era in gaming by re-creating its gameplay and pretending the intervening decades never happened?
And if most studio had the time and money to make something of Witcher 3's caliber you'd almost have a point, but they don't, very few do, and even if they somehow did then in a few years time we'd all just be complaining about how more rpg need to do something different and stop copying the same Witcher 3 style formula.
Diversity is good. Some people like myself really like the isometric perspective for games, enjoy the party mechanics and the silly banter between group members. Calling them 'lazy' and 'creatively bankrupt' is a disservice in so many ways especially considering till the whole Kickstarter craze began, this entire style of rpg was effectively dead. Also I've yet to have seen a better way to portray the whole D&D style group of adventurer's in a game, have you?
so basically, for you at least, it is not a good game by itself (by modern standards, at least), but rather a symbol of change in RPGs (or something like that)? Yeah, I can agree with that.
Actually I love the series, I still play it today with the Enhanced Edition. I do believe it is a good game, but I was more acknowledging that it's not quite as accessible an RPG as some modern ones might be. Granted the story alone was never why I played it, and it being largely combat driven doesn't bother me in the least. I enjoy it because it's a game I can replay multiple times with many different characters and still have a unique and entertaining experience.
In many ways though it's not a game that appeals to those introduced to RPGs through more modern offerings. Just like I can't seem to go back and enjoy the old SSI D&D games that paved the way for Baldur's Gate because they were a bit before my time and while they may still hold a wealth of gameplay value for those who played them originally, their systems seem too dated and clunky for me to appreciate them as an actual game, thus relegating them purely to a historical footnote of what came before. I would likewise expect those who started with the likes of Skyrim and Dragon Age to have a harder time appreciating the fun and gameplay of Baldur's Gate, though I don't believe it's nostalgia alone that makes them great games, the wealth of interesting content also plays a big part for me.
*Raises hand*
Um... Planescape: Torment? I mean, it is not necessarily better, but it certainly unique: your primary physical fighter is a flying skull, your party healer is a reformed succubus, and paladin is a crazy guy whom even other crazy paladins consider too crazy.
As for conventional (read: not weird) parties... Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II had at least not bad ones, IMO.
I replayed BG (I and II) nearly at the same time as PoE. And i liked PoE far more. The rules used wok better for a computer game then AD&D2 but the most important part is that stories and sidequests are significantly more interesting and believable than those of BG. BG has more stupid juvenile jokes, less interesting characters and more lazy, contreived plot.
But well, it is a matter of taste.
BG(I and II) was one of the best RPGs of its time, the first good ones i found after the Realms of Arcana series and for a long time thereafter unmatched.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
